Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK/Proposed decision

all proposed

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or vote to 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.
Items that receive a majority abstentions will need to go through an amendment process and be re-voted on once.

Conditional votes for, against, or to abstain should be explained by the Arbitrator in parenthesis after his time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were enacted.

Proposed temporary orders

1) {text of proposed orders}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed principles

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

1) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.)

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

The Cunctator 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2) All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See Wikipedia:NPOV.)

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

The Cunctator 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

3) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Cunctator 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

4) Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Wikipedia:Civility.)

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Cunctator 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

5) Legal threats are anti-social, and may be grounds for banning. (See Wikipedia:No legal threats.)

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Cunctator 05:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

6) {text of proposed principle}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

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.

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

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" [1] [2]

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

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.

Aye:

→Raul654 01:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

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

Aye:

James F. (talk) 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 01:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:23, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

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

Aye:

James F. (talk) 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 01:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Cunctator 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

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.

Aye

→Raul654 02:16, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

The Cunctator 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

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.

Aye:

James F. (talk) 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 01:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

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. --the Epopt 20:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The Cunctator 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abstain:

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.)

Aye:

It seems short to me, but if others agree, I can live with this. →Raul654 22:32, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Can we set this ban to restart each time RK edits a Judaism-related article? It might help solve your concerns, Raul....I don't know. Hopefully that will help RK focus on the areas where he makes very good contributions, rather than trying to find a way around the editing ban. Note: I suggest this as a sterner penalty than the mere adding of a week -- it implies we expect perfect adherence to the spirit of this ruling.) (see below →Raul654)
Too short, IMO, but it is better than no such ban. Jwr: That's the normal way these things work, so, yes. James F. (talk) 22:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 14:12, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

The Cunctator 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) I can't vote for a "indirectly related" "left to the discretion of the admins".

Abstain:

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.

Aye:

James F. (talk) 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 01:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Assuming that by "2" we mean 2.5 also, since I prefer it)

Nay:

Abstain:

The Cunctator 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

Aye:

James F. (talk) 01:44, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
→Raul654 01:45, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:54, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nay:

Abstain:

Jwrosenzweig 21:27, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Seems a little condescending to remind someone of their powers, or else a little threatening -- i.e. "you really should block him since we can't" or something like that. If the mailing list is out of our direct control, let's allow it to handle things itself, I think.

Eh. It doesn't hurt -- we're not trying to serve them a mandamus --the Epopt 14:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Cunctator 17:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) What Jwrosenzweig said.

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Enforcement

proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on

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.

Aye:

→Raul654 01:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
James F. (talk) 03:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 20:55, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 21:29, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Although note 2.5 above where I suggest a sterner penalty.)
The Cunctator 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) Sure, why not. Not entirely happy about the vague "no edits related indirectly to Judaism".

Nay:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Aye:

Nay:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Four Aye votes needed to close case

If 4 votes in favor is enough to approve a measure (and I believe it is), I think the will of the AC is clear, and it is time for this proceeding to conclude. I move to close. Jwrosenzweig 22:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If 4 votes in favor is enough to approve a measure - wrong. A majority of currently active arbitrators is necessary. There are 9 arbitrators who consider themselves active, and thus 5 votes are necessary. I oppose closing the proceedings. →Raul654 22:58, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I agree - motion withdrawn. Sorry, I was used to 4 votes being sufficient. I'll go rescind motions to close elsewhere. Can we scrounge up that 5th vote? Jwrosenzweig 23:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Motion to close 2

As Michael Snow has pointed out, 2 of the active arbitrators have recused themselves from this case, meaning that the vote totals are out of 7, not 9. Thus, 4 votes is a majority. In light of this, I suggest we close the case. →Raul654 16:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Aye:

→Raul654 16:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
the Epopt 16:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The Cunctator 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jwrosenzweig 20:01, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) (As the 4th vote, I believe that makes this matter closed. Do we instruct an admin to impose the consequences, or does the AC do it directly?)

Post the required actions on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested and the final decision on RK's talk page. You might give him a few hours to settle his affairs, perhaps start the ban about 12 hours from now. Fred Bauder 22:28, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Nay: