Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Evidence

The Arbitration Committee can decide for itself which material on the Evidence page to consider and which to ignore. Do not move the additions of other editors to here unless you are an AC member engaged in clean-up. --Zero 04:51, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Text moved from the evidence page by Theresa Knott (ask the rotten)

Zero

- Comments. When the earlier AC case opened, RK's behaviour improved for the better. Of course this means nothing as he was under threat of banning. When he was blocked, his behaviour was even better. Now he is being investigated again, so once more his behaviour means nothing (but look at the insults I quoted above and also note he is already in a revert war on Chabad Lubavitch, see below). IMHO, a quick read of RfA/RK and RfA/RK/Evidence will make it abundantly clear why the AC hit him with a long ban. He is the most disruptive, combative, offensive editor I have ever encountered.
- The claim that the disputes were resolved is a stunt. He was not banned because of specific disputes over specific articles but over a long history of offensive behavior. He will do it again; I am certain of it.

Again, this is not "evidence". Your claim that you can see the future is not acceptable as evidence of anything. Please restrict your "evidence" to actual edits. RK 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

- Incidentally, when the previous AC wrote "directly or indirectly related to Judaism" I'm pretty sure they meant the "indirectly" to cover articles on Israel-related politics/history, Zionism, and the like. You can see this from the "findings of fact". This was an area where RK did the most damage, so don't look just at directly Jewish issues.

Truthaboutchabad

Apparently RK is very biased against many people and will resort to any means including misusing wikipedia to achieve what he wants. His recent biased POV edits to chabad have proven this. --Truthaboutchabad 00:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additionaly RK has violated a ban against his editing Judaism related articles for one year as seen by his recent edit to chabad. --Truthaboutchabad 00:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert has evidence that there are indeed subgroups of Chabad Lubavitch that insist the Rebbe is a Godly reincarnation. Please discuss this with him, rather than coming here to rant. Not everything that you are uncomfortable with is false. JFW | T@lk 00:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Robert seems to have "evidence" thatis made up by his biased mind. REMEMBER that Wikipedia needs to have a NEUTRAL point of view! --Truthaboutchabad 02:11, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK has vandalized the chabad page AGAIN! The chabad page had a very delicate balance before RK decided to start vandalizing it.--Truthaboutchabad 05:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg

I have been holding back from this case until now, hoping that I would see evidence that RK's behaviour had changed. Unfortunately, I see the exact opposite; that even under the threat of continued edit banning, he cannot restrain himself. As Zero's evidence shows, he has reverted to his previous discussion style, heated and personal denunciations of those he considers to be persecuting him, combined with a profound misunderstanding of the Wikipedia process. Even on this Talk: page his arguments are filled with ad hominems; as a simple example, witness his response to Dissident above, in which he attributes "anger" to Dissident (a typical RK response to those who disagree with him).

As well, he has reverted his previous editing style . For example, on Feb 24 he made massive edits to the Judaism article [1] without any prior discussion at all in the Talk: page. He has also reverted to pushing his POV, but the evidence is only obvious to those familiar with the subjects in question, and in any event is beyond the scope of this page.

Huh? I have no idea of what you are talking about! In fact, I have made very few edits, and I have discussed them on Talk pages. And in regards to the Maimonides article, I have refused to make unilateral edits on controversial sections, and have repeatedly asked you for your views and sources! RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a new pattern; he acted this way years ago on message boards, he has consistently acted this way throughout his editing period at Wikipedia, and even after his 4 month banning I see no evidence whatsoever that RK can restrain himself in a way that will conform to Wikipedia policy. I say this with a rather heavy heart; months ago RK told me that I had lost a "friend and an ally" over the original banning, and this certainly won't help. As well, I think he truly believes what he says; that he is civil, that his edits are reasonable, and that Nazis and anti-Semites and their supporters are conspiring against him and manipulating Wikipedia. Finally, RK has contributed much of value to Wikipedia. However, that does not change the facts as I see them. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg is confused! The massive spate of posts about Nazis abusing Wikipedia on the WikiEn list was not written by me. I perhaps added two messages, to the dozens of messages written by others. As for edits on articles, I have added zero comments on this issue. I honestly cannot see what he is talking about. I admit that I did view Jay as a friend and as an ally, and I was sad to lose him as such. Why does this make be bad, or count as a bannable offense? Would he have preferred personal attacks? Come on, that's just not right. RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

If he truly believes that he is civil, that his edits are reasonable, and that Nazis and anti-Semites and their supporters are conspiring against him and manipulating Wikipedia... then he is insane, pure and simple. I am opposed to allowing an insane person who was banned from editing Jewish-related articles (for extraordinarily good cause) to edit them once again... wouldn't you be? Therefore, I do not really think I understand your point here, Jayig. Note that I'm not saying that RK is insane... just that if what Jayig says is TRUE that he would, perforce, be. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:26, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Dante, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to go around classifying people as mentally ill because you disagree with their edits. Please desist. RK 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot desist from something I am not doing. Read what I wrote. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:28, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think one should speculate about the mental state of another Wikipedia editor; I certainly wouldn't presume to. As for my point, it is that I think RK makes his edits and comments in good faith; that he is not intentionally trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is possible for both of the following statements to be true: RK does not intentionally disrupt Wikipedia. RK does not believe all of the statements he makes on/about Wikipedia. I don't believe that he is always disruptive intentionally. My personal belief (based on my experience with RK on Wikipedia and the mailing lists) is that RK:

is quick to get "worked up".
makes poor decisions when he is upset.
throws around highly charged phrases (such as anti-semitism) without due care or consideration.
exaggerates regularly (or uses hyperbole) to "help" his position.

This is why I think your statements are wrong. I don't think RK is insane (a little paranoid maybe), but I similarly do not accept that he is "good" for Wikipedia. I think his general behavior and specific actions make him a hindrance to what Wikipedia attempts to accomplish. A look at the history of his conflicts will show someone who more vitriolic conflicts than most and, IMO, with far less (and sometimes no) reasonable provocation. It's one thing to get vehemently upset at real anti-semitism (or any other hateful "speech"). It's quite another to accuse those who disagree with you of being proven Nazis. Furthermore, the thing I believe that RK "just doesn't get" is that there are many people at Wikipedia who don't like HIM. Not Jews. Him. There are quite a few "anti-RKites" at Wikipedia, but that doesn't make them anti-semites. RK sometimes seems to be unable to believe that people could dislike him personally while having no problem with people he's ostensibly genetically related to. Akin would be RK's insistence on seeing "Jew-baiting" at Wikipedia where (even if the actions he refers to did indeed take place) they could perhaps be more probably labeled "RK-baiting". Someone who (and I don't support this, mind you) is trying to get a rise out of RK will likely say things about Jews, as this will get him riled-up. It doesn't, perforce, make them an anti-semite. An asshole maybe, but not necessarily an anti-semite. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure where we are disagreeing; I think the 1 year ban, as decided by ArbCom, should stand. Did my comments not make that clear? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We agree on that point it seems. Reading your post, I thought that you were offering his "sincerity" and his good contributions as mitigating factors (albeit not ones that sufficiently redeemed him), and I was disagreeing with the interpretation that he did believe what he said. In essence, I was offering a theory of his actions different from "he believes everything he says" or "he's intentionally being disruptive". I suppose we're not really in that much disagreement. Perhaps, if anything, we differ on the precise reasons that the one-year ban should be maintained, but that's small potatoes, I imagine. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:15, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, this page is about evidence. You have offered none. In contrast, Jay just seems angry because I am asking him to present sources in regards to the Maimonides article. For this alone he is trying to ban me again, which is grossly unfair. I am still trying to reach out to him! Every time he asks me for sources, I comply. Every time he asks me to explain my position, I comply! Yet each time I ask him for sources, or to explain his position, he refuses. I do not understand why he is obstructionist. 03:11, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC) (Signature added: RK)

Dissident

You seem confused. Martin Harper (MyRedDice) decided to imagine that he was my enemy, and thus made up a list of everyone who ever attacked me, and all of my responses to them. What does that have to do with the current question - Why an additional ban after the four month ban? You and others keep rehashing the past, trying to prevent the Wikipedia process from working. Stop the anger and personal attacks, and concentrate on the present: Nothing above is evidence for any new problem. Please try and find ways to make Wikipedia work, ok? RK 00:49, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you insist on claiming to know what goes on inside other peoples' heads? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:13, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

My list is, as it states, a list of people attacked by Robert "fuck you sick Nazi bastards" Kaiser. I did not bother discovering "who started it" in each case, as I am not a primary school teacher.

RK's speculations about my motivation are erroneous. My actual rationale is on the page itself. Martin 17:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RK was banned for one year from editing Jewish related article. He just showed up recently after a 4-month ban and is demanding that the one-year ban should be lifted. Why should it be lifted? We don't know whether RK's behavior has changed. At least wait five months where he can demonstrate that he can edit Wikipedia without resorting to his trademark personal insults and other abuses (calling people Nazis, anti-Semites, calling the whole community Nazipedia). Since he is back, he has already been involved in a dispute. He has already started posting insults and accusations, like against Zero on the mailing list (see evidence). Why should the ban be lifted without requiring him to demonstrate for five or six months that he can edit Wikipedia without his trade mark personal insults and other abuses? OneGuy 13:27, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

Remember the ban on Gzornenplatz for the last year vandalism as Wik? That kind of post should have led to permanent ban on RK OneGuy 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You seem confused. There is no such ban against me. In fact, I am allowed to edit 99% of all Wikipedia articles. The question is whether or not the ban on editing Judaism articles for the next few months is warranted. This page is for evidence, not for discussions about how much you wish the ArbCom had come up with a totally different attack on me. RK

End of moved text

I removed the above text from the evidence page. The section headers are the from the evidence section headers on the evidence page and are not necessarily the same people who actually made the comments. My reasons for doing this are to keep the evidence page short and sweet, and try to have only evidence on the page. Please use this talk page for discussions, opinions etc. Abitrators will read both pages. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)