Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Evidence

< Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration | RK 2

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by RK

edit

Ocotber 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=6338250&oldid=6322614
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=6322614&oldid=6321340

Sept. 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=6031470&oldid=5655455
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=5655455&oldid=5588196
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=5588196&oldid=5573653

Agug. 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5570838
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5563266
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5273293
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5272533
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5272349
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5081160
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=5009098&oldid=5005936
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5005936
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&oldid=5000174

July 2004

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4888770&oldid=4888345
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4878200&oldid=4873285
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4746637&oldid=4746613
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism&diff=4706233&oldid=4691192
  • No timestamp - Four months ago
    • What happened: Nothing - that is the point.
    • I was banned for an entire year despite the fact that I was not involved in any flame wars, I was not involved in any revert wars or edit wars.
    • The supposed problems actually had been peacefully resolved, while the people banning me claimed otherwise, for reasons I am still puzzled by.
    • I have taken many contentious articles off' of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments.
    • I have asked for and successfully used mediation.
    • I have e-mailed Jimbo Wales and others about this ban previously. They were unable to come up with a single instance of someone in this situation ever being banned. This speaks volumes. We thus have a situation in which a huge ban is made for events that are normally described as a successfull resolution. This is not reasonable. RK 02:03, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I have worked with many others on all of the Judaism articles, and I coordinate my editing with the WikiProject team working on Judaism articles. This effort turned out to be very successful. In fact, every time I create an article I invite others to work on it, which is the opposite of what some people claim. And as you can see, others invite me to work on articles that they have created. I truly do not understand the claims to the contrary. Please see the below edits for specific examples. (In contrast, the people trying to get me banned refuse to cooperate with the rest of us, for reasons still unknown.) Some specific examples follow:


[Re: [2]].

Huh? There were no lies and no insults. Every word on this message was factual, and even on the Wiki-En list you did not dispute it. You merely here ad more facts and try to present your spin on the issue, which is your right. But you certainly did call for the acceptance of edits by people who admit to being Nazis, you admitted it more than once, and your implication to the contrary here is not honest. RK 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Zero0000

edit
  • 20:38, Feb 15, 2005
    • The committee should note the accusations made by RK against the previous Arbitration Committee on User talk:RK and copied on several other places:
"we should not allow four people with a vendetta to wreck our whole system"
"a small number of people abusing their Admin power out of some sort of personal vendetta"
This is precisely the same sort of abusive behavior that he was banned for. --Zero 12:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


    • 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. --Zero 13:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Clarification of this comment. It is true that many Lubavitchers believe the late Rebbe was Mossiach. It is not a tiny minority who believe this but at least a large minority. It is also true that some of the rhetoric produced in support of this claim is uncannily like Christian rhetoric (this is my personal opinion based on reading it). However RK wrote "developing into a new form of Christianity" which is patently absurd. Looking at the edits, we see RK inserting his own opinion in the guise of reporting someone else's. This is evident by the way he gives contrary views only a few token words at the end of the passage. This example is representative of RK's edits. --Zero 02:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Zero, this is not "evidence". You are taking a description of a religion which is used by many religious scholars, and are falsely and bizarrely saying that it is somehow my unique personal view. Also, I do not see how making that point constitutes "evidence" for violation of Wikipedia protocol. Zero, mere disagreement with an edit does not constitute vandalism, hatespeech, or grounds for a ban. In any case, not a single person on the WikiProject for Judaism agrees with you. RK 00:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Personal insults and lies on Wikien-l: [3]. Quote: "Zero 0000 _again_ defended Nazi hatespeech and harassment, and called for its acceptance on Wikipedia". The block log will reveal that in fact I was the first sysop to block the Nazi user NSM88 whose edits started this thread and the first to bring that to the mailing list for discussion. --Zero 13:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Evidence presented by Dissident

edit

MyRedDice kept a list of wikipedians attacked by RK. It'll be interesting to see what each's (current) opinion of RK and their disputes with him was as well as vice versa.

I would also like to be one to stress that this is NOT about any perceived "dispute" over any articles, it is about RK's conduct towards other people! It's typical for RK to deliberately misportray the issue to his advantage. -- Dissident (Talk) 20:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Jayjg

edit

Since returning RK has reverted his previous editing and comment style. His editing style consists of making broad generalizations that many people support his opinions, when indeed they seem to be supported by a small minority of individuals, or merely his personal opinion. When pressed for citations, if he does provide them, they rarely support the specific point he is making. He also takes his disputes to Wikien-l, and in Talk: makes personal comments (often attributing emotion to his opponents). As examples (sorry for the length, some of them get fairly esoteric):

  • On his second day returning to Wikipedia after his ban, RK resumes a dispute he has with User:Stirling Newberry regarding article content on Age of Enlightenment, inserting an opinion paragraph that appears to have no citations [4]. Two days later he re-inserts the same text, informing Sterling that "Wiki-En list has been notified" [5], something he commonly does rather than using the proper dispute resolution channels. Later the same day reverts the same text and more, describing Stirling's edits as "vandalism" [6] He also refers to Stirling's comments as "angry" [7] - note the comment he is responding to seems fairly dispassionate. In the end Stirling appears to end the debate by pointing out that not only is disputed section uncited POV, but also (based on actual citations) inaccurate. He cuts to the heart of the issue with his final statement "In summary, a set of sweeping generalizations to the point of misinformative oversimplification which is not born out by an examination even of the major figures of the period, let alone a host of minor ones which we spend less time. The whole is based on historical fallacy: exagerating those features of the 18th century which we, ourselves, place the greatest value in." [8] It is these tendencies (sweeping generalizations to the point of misinformative oversimplification, exaggerating features that RK place the greatest value in) which characterize other on-going edit conflicts.
  • After taking a break for a week, he returns on Feb 24 making massive edits to the Judaism article [9] without any prior discussion at all in the Talk: page.
  • He also returns to a previous dispute on the Maimonides page. RK had been asserting for weeks before his ban that Maimonides had not believed in his 13 Principles of Faith, based on the work of one author (Marc Shapiro) who has been promoting this novel thesis. Maimonides distinguished between "true beliefs" and "necessary beliefs", and Shapiro extended this idea from its usual understanding to the 13 Principles of Faith as well. RK has been continually attempting to promote Shapiro's view as normative amongst most Jewish movements (including Modern Orthodox) and most Jews (including scholars), and has been buttressing his claim with broad statements like "Many Jews hold" or "Most Maimonidean scholars believe" etc. When he is challenged to produce actual sources for these broad claims, he attempts to reverse the onus of proof by asking for citations from those opposing him.[10] When again pressed for specific citations to support his thesis,[11] he again insists they these are common views, and therefore his opponents need to bring citations to disprove them.[12] When asked to start a new section proposing his new text,[13] he seems unable to envision using the Talk: page for this purpose, and instead wishes to use the Talk: pages to debate the issue. [14] When again pressed to produce a suggested new text,[15] he produces one which makes broad claims (e.g. "is accepted as factual by many modern Orthodox Maimonidean scholars," "These views are also understood as correct by the Reform and Conservative rabbinate," "the average Jewish layperson, of perhaps any denominations, believes the opposite: Many Jews hold..." etc.) yet only quotes the one scholar he prefers, Shapiro.[16] When his text is challenged in a number of places asking for sources for the broad claims, [17] he insists they exist elsewhere, and that his opponents are "angry", and making "bizarre personal attacks" and "ruthless attacks" on various scholars. [18] When asked again to provide citations for his claims, and focus on article content, not his opinions about Wikipedia editors,[19] he responds by stating the editors who disagree with him are "confused" and "attacking", and providing a source which does not actually support RK's/Shapiro's thesis that Maimonides did not believe in his own 13 Principles of Faith, but rather something entirely different, that Maimonides distinguished between "true" and "necessary" beliefs.[20] When requested not to get personal, and ask again for sources for his specific claims,[21] he again insists on talking about the personal beliefs of the editors who are asking for citations and disagree with him, calling them "angry", and produces sources which support a different point.[22] When again asked not to get personal, and to provide citations which actually support his specific claims, he remains silent.[23] This is exactly the pattern that occurred months before on the same topic, and which inevitably leads to his article content conflicts.
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)
  • RK then moves on to Kabbalah Centre, where he again attempts to promote this POV, replacing specific statements with weasel words and broad unsupported claims, replacing "Modern Orthodox scholar Marc Shapiro holds that this is the view of Maimonides, despite a literal reading of Maimonides 11th principle of faith" with "many historians and some Modern Orthodox scholars hold that this is the view of Maimonides, despite a literal reading of Maimonides 11th principle of faith. On this specific topic Berg's teachings are similar to much of non-Orthodox Judaism."[24] While replacing a specific citation with these broad claims, RK strangely insists in his edit summary that others must "bring forth sources to back up your position". He later reverts to his edits [25], still providing no citations.
  • Similarly, in Jewish views of astrology, he continues to insert broad uncited POV claims [26] as well as irrelevant commentary, and insists on reverting to it without providing any evidence for his claims [27] His edit summaries are personal ("please stop reverting views which make you uncomfortable", and his Talk: comments repeat these claims "please stop reverting facts that make you uncomfortable", "Your comments in the article history edit lines indicate that you are unfamiliar with this." He almost ignores the actual objections to the statements in question (that they are either off-topic or unsupported POV), making handwaving arguments in their favour "Are you seriously under the impression that most Jews really still believe in astrology? That position is untenable," while quoting lengthy sections from the NPOV policy implying (and later stating explicitly) that the objector here is "reverting and censorsing views about science and non-Orthodox Jewish belief that makes you uncomfortable."[28]

In summary, RK's edit pattern has not changed at all; he continues to disguise his own POV as a "broad consensus", and refuses to provide any sorts of actual citations for his claims. When responding in Talk: his comments are nearly always about the editor, not the edits. And all this is happening while his behaviour is "restrained" because he is still under risk of having his temporarily lifted edit ban re-instated. Jayjg (talk) 17:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Dante Alighieri

edit

[29]

--Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:18, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is from October 2003. We're living in the present, Dante. JFW | T@lk 00:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The submitted evidence is characteristic of RK's behavior, and I have seen nothing from him since then that indicates that he has changed. This indicates the appropriateness of his ban on editing Jewish-related articles, which RK seems to think inappropriate. We may be living in the present, Jfdwolff, but those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:42, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Martin

edit

The most important stuff is here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK/Evidence. I see no evidence of any kind of irregularity in Robert's arbitration case. As such, I see no grounds for an appeal.

Specific "eye-witness" evidence regarding RK's "facts" in his statement on the main page.

I am not involved in any flame wars.

Robert Kaiser regularly and consistently flamed people, right up to his formal arbitration. See the following sections of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK/Evidence:

  • Abusive edit summaries
  • Abusive talk page comments
  • Posts to the mailing list
  • Ad hominem/Poisoning the Well

Robert Kaiser's discussion regarding the article ban is a good example of a current flame war that he is in, despite only recently rejoining Wikipedia. His repeated accusations that other people are engaging in "harassment" or are "angry" or are not "honest", for example, are typical examples of his flame war techniques, albeit calmer than when he is not under such close supervision.

Not a single Wikipedian was ever given a year ban when parties amicably came to a peacul and productive resolution. Ever. Unfortunately, a tiny number of people are angry that our system actually worked. What kind of people think that peaceful resolutions and long-term cooperation is grounds for a year long ban?

I would not characterise Robert "fuck you sick Nazi bastards" Kaiser as an exemplar of peaceful resolution and long-term co-operation. Nor would I describe my relationship with him as having amicably come to a peaceful and productive resolution.

In repeated shows of good faith, I repeatedly take week-long or longer Wiki-breaks, and allow other people to have their say without any problem. The tiny number of people trying to ban me do the opposite.

Incorrect. I have done little Wikipedia editing for most of this year. I recused myself from RK's arbitration case. I feel that the arbcom article ban on Robert Kaiser should stand.

I have taken many contentious articles off' of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. No one else has done so.

Incorrect. A large number of Wikipedians, including myself, have ceased editing or watching articles where Robert has an interest, not wishing to be subject to his well-documented attacks.

I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary.

RK asked for mediation with me. I was delighted to accept. The process rapidly collapsed prior even to our agreeing on a mediator. I will resist the temptation to assign blame, as mediation is supposed to be confidential. I would not characterise Robert's use of mediation as "successful".

Evidence presented by Firebug

edit

Personal attacks injected into edit summaries on Nation of Islam and Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism when I reverted his POV edits. He is accusing me of "anti-Christianity" and "personal attacks" (the latter despite the fact that most of my reverts merely mentioned the NPOV policy, which he apparently regards as a personal attack against him.) He claimed that my edits were "close to vandalism" because he personally disagreed with them. [30] [31] [32] I do not think that RK understands the NPOV policy nor has any intentions of complying with it. As a result, I think it is very important that the ban on editing articles related to Judaism be retained. It should also be clarified that this applies to articles related to anti-Semitism as well. RK has shown no evidence that the original Arbcom ruling was incorrect, and he has shown no evidence that he has learnt the error of his ways. Firebug 01:47, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update - Since this was posted, RK also deleted one of my comments on Talk:Nation_of_Islam because he did not like its content. While editing articles is acceptable, my understanding is that deleting other user comments on Discussion pages is not. Firebug 05:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

edit

To my knowledge, Robert Kaiser has never apologised to me for his persistent and wholly unsubstantiated accusations that I am in some way anti-Semitic, nor has he retracted those accusations.

To my knowledge, no other Wikipedian has made remotely similar accusations against me. Robert has often intimated that such other accusations exist, but they do not.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RK_2/Evidence&oldid=1039424398"