Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2

As the person who filed the original RfA complaint against RK after yet another foul-mouthed insult, I urge the committee to examine the evidence on which basis the ruling was made. --Zero 23:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That goes without saying. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WTF? Are people now able to appeal everything ad infinitum or is this just yet another case where RK gets off whenever he performs his patented Oscar-winning victim role? STOP GIVING HIM FAVORS ALL THE TIME AND START IMPLEMENTING YOUR OWN RULINGS!!! -- A very pissed off Dissident (Talk) 18:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hope that Dissident stops the angry personal attacks. I do not know why he imagines that being given a one-year ban on editing Judaism articles is a "favor", or why he imagines that being allowed to use RFA as all other Wikipedians do is unfair. The rules for Wikipedia apply equally to all. It is grossly unfair to hold that I alone am forbidden to follow Wikipedia rules as other people do! The above remarks from Dissident and Zero are angry, and do not seem reasonable. In any case, neither of their comments have anything to do with the specific case at hand; they seem very confused about the issue. There is no issue of me being banned from Wikipedia. The issue, rather, is about a one-year ban on editing Judaism-related articles. Articles, it must be noted, that they themlsevs generally do not edit. In point of fact - and please see this for yourself - they do not cooperate with others in the WikiProject on Judaism articles, while I do. In contrast, the people who do edit the Judaism articles are not in favor of this egegious ban, and even many Wikipedia Admins and Sysops are confused about this. RK 20:55, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

For years, I have seen you terrorize other Wikipedians, only to, when finally called to answer yourself to "higher authorities", act like nothing happened afterwards. Now, I find it incredulous to believe that after all this time you would finally decide to reform yourself, but what I find outrageous is that you dare to put on an acute amnesiac pretense with the air of an upstanding Wikicitizen. Well, you're not and the record is there for all to see. You're an intellectual terrorist and a liar, and for me and I dare say a lot of people who know you, you've already WAY passed the point of Wikipedia:assume good faith. Now take a good look at that link again (and don't you dare act like it doesn't exist!) and tell me why the arbitration committee wasn't justified in giving you every punishment they did gave you. -- Dissident (Talk) 21:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: The ban is especially bizarre and puzzling because the people who edit these articles do not support the ban. This is quite an understatement; most of us ardently oppose the ban and lost a considerable amount of respect for the arbitration process when it was imposed. (I could even start a petition demonstrating this fact, if anyone asks.) Our Judaism-related articles have already suffered enough due to RK's three-month block. 172 10:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dissident - All we have agreed to do is look at the evidence again. Agreeing to hear an appeal is not the same thing as agreeing that RK has been treated unfairly. I understand that you are angry, but let me assure you that we are not soft, we are not stupid, and we are not going to make a descision that will be detrimental to Wikipedia. If you can provide any evidence on the evidence page that you feel will help us to come to a proper descision I would find that very useful. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What evidence can you honestly expect me to supply if RK was just recently unbanned? Is the original evidence page not good enough? In a nutshell, it's clear that one cannot expect RK to refrain himself from frothing at the mouth while hurling insults if things don't go his away, especially when it concerns Anti-Semitism (real or imagined), Israel and/or Zionism. -- Dissident (Talk) 17:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK claims that that the problems he had with Jewish articles had all been solved long ago. If you have any evidence to the contrary, for example RK behaving badly just before he was banned then that would be important. But if you don't have any evidence like that, then it don't fret. Of course the original evidence page is good enough. We will be looking at all of it again. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks and lies by Zero

I am disturbed by Zero's attempt to confuse peopel by lying about recent contributions to an article, and by personal attacks on me by "messianic Jews". Zero writes:

He is inserting a claim (alleged to be a report that someone says that) Chabad Lubavitch is "developing into a new form of Christianity". RK knows this to be factually false (Chabad do not believe in Jesus Christ, the most that could be conceivably be claimed is that they are adopting some features common to Christianity). RK also knows that Lubavitchers would regard this false claim as exceedingly offensive. But it's his POV and POV pushing is what he does

This can be proven to be a deliberate lie. Please do not take my word on this. Contact JFWolff immediately. Zero's behaviour constitutes harassment. It is a fact that many historians and scholars of Judaism have been writing about how various Jewish factions have developed into forms of neo-Christianity, including the Donmeh, and now a faction of Chabad (Lubavitch) Judaism. This is very well-known in the field. Zero's disingenuously claims that the existence of this body of scholarly research is only "alleged", which is a provable lie. Entire books have been written on the issue, and scholarly journals have articles on it. Also, Zero attacks bizarre claims that no one is making. For instance, neither I nor anyone else claims that Chabad Jews worship Jesus Christ. That is just silly. Essentially, he is angry at me that I am here at all, and is counting on the entire ArbCom being totally ignorant of the facts. This is not merely acting in bad faith; this is a deliberate attempt to pervert the entire process. Again, do not take my word on this. Please contact JFWolff immediately. RK 18:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

~~Robert what is this doing here? How does Zero's behaviour relate to your appeal? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:37, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)~~ I see now that zero posted the above on the evidence page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing and deleting comments from Discussion pages

I strongly oppose any reversal of ArbCom's previous ruling in this case. RK has been spending a great deal of time pushing his POV on various pages, making personal attacks, and (in at least one case) deleting comments from a Discussion page. [1] All of these are unacceptable. I see no evidence that RK has changed his ways, and no reason why the injunctions imposed at the original Arbcom proceedings should be lifted. Firebug 05:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)