Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | RK 2

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Gerard (talk | contribs) at 16:46, 13 March 2005 (comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

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.

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:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

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)
Nay:
Abstain:

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)
Nay:
Abstain:



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)
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

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)
Nay:
Abstain:

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)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) He's not perfect but has calmed down a lot.
Nay:
Abstain:

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)
  4. David Gerard 16:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) As above.
Abstain:

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.
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

Previous ban

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

Aye:
  1. Neutralitytalk 04:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Grunt 🇪🇺 20:39, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 04:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nay:
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:
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)
Abstain:

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)
  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"
Nay:
Abstain:

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)
  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)
Nay:
Abstain:

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 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 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.
Nay:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:
Nay:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

RK honestly doesn't see any problem, others do and have provided substantial evidence. That makes this a tricky one - David Gerard 16:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2/Proposed_decision&oldid=11097422"