Delirium wrote:
I didn't participate in this particular Arbitration decision, so this is just my personal view, but I don't think it was inconsistent or unjustifiable. Any particular action by RK doesn't warrant banning IMO, but this is not one particular action. There is a *lengthy* series of actions, and he's been at the center of numerous disputes over the past year or so. Some are not his fault, and some are. Generally, he appears to go ballistic during most of them, which causes problems. If you look through this mailing list's archives, you'll find quite a few tirades from him, including his belief that Wikipedia ought to be called "Nazipedia" due to its antisemitism (a statement I don't think he ever actually retracted). On the whole, he's accounted for a disproportionate share of problem-resolution time, and I don't think it's entirely due to the people he contends with. It's a tough call because he also has been a good faith contributor, but I think if you look at other decisions, it's consistent. IMO this case is clearer than Wik's case, for example.
-Mark
How amusing. I have seen just as many people call Wikipedia a biased in favour of Jews.
TBSDY