text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK/Evidence

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

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

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a separate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence.

Be aware that the arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent.

Other relevant pages
''mostly pinched from Requests for arbitration/RK
 * 1) Community case RK (older version)
 * 2) Requests for comment/RK, Requests for comment/RK2
 * RK
 * 1) User talk:RK/Departure
 * 2) User:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK

Just for background. —No-One Jones 04:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abusive edit summaries
''These speak for themselves, I think. All may be verified through Special:Contributions/RK. More are available if needed. —No-One Jones 01:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)''

Garden-variety abuse

 * 02:45, 3 Sep 2004 Talk:Anti-Defamation League (Cadr is clearly pushing grossly anti-Semitic views.)
 * 02:43, 3 Sep 2004 Anti-Defamation League (ADL hater on the loose?)
 * 02:41, 3 Sep 2004 Talk:Anti-Defamation League (Revert anti-Semitic edits by Cadr. He has gove over-the-edge by saying that the word "anti-Semitic" is inherently POV.)
 * 21:39, 31 Aug 2004 Talk:Jew (Removing anti-Semitic Nazi attacks by an admitted anti-Semite. These people are out of control.)
 * 21:38, 31 Aug 2004 Artscroll (ezra, stop deleting all material that you don't personally approve of. Your pseudo-Orthodox censorship is a violation of Wikipedia standards.)
 * 21:24, 31 Aug 2004 Judaism (Our encyclopedia is not the place for Ezra Wax's off-topic quasi-Orthodox religious sermons.)
 * 14:54, 11 Aug 2004 Minyan (Reverting censorship meant to push ultra-Orthodox views.)
 * 14:13, 11 Aug 2004 Anti-Defamation League (Removing blatant, old-fashioned Jew-baiting, using Ariel Sharon's quote as a reason to make an attack on all Jews. For shame.)
 * 14:10, 11 Aug 2004 Role of women in Judaism (Jayjg, your misrepresentation and censorship will not be tolerated,)
 * 14:01, 11 Aug 2004 The Passion of the Christ (Revert deliberate lies by Jayjg. Sysops, please be cautious of people lying about the Jewish community.)
 * 16:27, 5 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Revert due to vandalism. Jayjg is inserting deliberate lies about both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews in order to slander them. This issue is now up for Sysop action.)
 * 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Jayjg, I cannot let you replace facts with ultra-Orthodox paranoid and propaganda.)
 * 00:01, 4 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (VANDALISM ALERT. Jayjg is writing totally false hatespeech about Reform Jews. He also is making accusations about edits which no one is even making. Hatred of non-Orthodox Jews does not justify fraud)
 * 23:55, 3 Aug 2004 Talk:Relationship between segments of Judaism (Lengthy quotes, balance - Response to Jayjg, who is printing hatespeech about non-Orthodox Jews, and is lying about words that I simply never wrote.)
 * 23:43, 3 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Jayjg, stop forging quotes from Reform Jews at once. Your attempts to fraudulent positions border on vandalism. Cut it out.)
 * 14:04, 3 Aug 2004 Relationship between segments of Judaism (Reform views - Jayjyg, stop your hateful liesa bout Reform Jews. How dare you try to incite hatred against Jews. We will have to remove your false claims/)
 * 13:13, 30 Jul 2004  Philosophy (Sysops, please help. Simonides is still reverting every single edit to this article. He is totaslly out of control. See Talk section.)
 * 21:37, 27 Jul 2004  Philosophy (Please stop adding little digs at people you consider to be "in the West". Your obesession on this is not healthy.)
 * 17:21, 27 Jul 2004  Islamophobia (See discussion. John Ball is reverting all content not written by him, and pursing an anti-Jewish bias to push his political beliefs.)
 * 01:02, 27 Jul 2004  Judaism (Ezra, quit jerking us around. Stop labeling this article as being from a "liberal viewpoint". learn the difference between Orthodoxy and NPOV.)
 * 20:08, 22 Jul 2004  Islamism (Graft, your censorship will have to be reported. Sysops, note that Graft refuses to allow any POV other than his own to exist here. This is trolling.)
 * 15:58, 20 Jul 2004  Islamophobia (Sysops, the Wiki-En list has been notified of John Ball's non-stop reverts, and his preventing of any new edits to this article.)
 * 15:38, 20 Jul 2004  Islamophobia (John Ball, your actions have been reported to the Wiki-En list. Stop pushing your pro-Islamic beliefs, and slandering others Muslims as racist. That is intolerable.)
 * 15:07, 20 Jul 2004  Bible conspiracy theories (Zero000 is stll mass reverting all info from this article. He has a long history of doing this to many articles.)
 * 04:35, 18 Jul 2004  Talk:Zionism (Please ignore Bk0's anti-Semitic Bible conspiracy theories.)
 * 04:33, 18 Jul 2004  Bible conspiracy theories (Mustafa and Zero are reverting this page to hide views they consider unpleasant. Such censorship is forbidden, and will be reverted.)
 * 04:19, 18 Jul 2004  Talk:Israel Shahak (Sysops, please stop Zero's ad homenim personal attacks and anti-Semitic Jew bashing.)
 * 03:01, 18 Jul 2004  Talk:Israel Shahak (Responding to Dan's anti-Semitic canards)
 * 22:39, 17 Jul 2004  Talk:Israel Shahak (More abuse and Wikipedia norms violations by "Zero".)
 * 04:18, 15 Jul 2004  Philosophy (SYSOP ALERT. Simonides is out of control on all articles. He reverts all edits by most people as vandalism, and is slandering other contributors.)
 * 22:20, 14 Jul 2004  Talk:Israel Shahak (Zero's personal attacks do not justify his vandalism. Where do we hgo from here? Why not try Wikipedia NPOV policy for a change? Stop the censorship.)
 * 20:25, 13 Jul 2004  Talk:Israel Shahak (Response to vandalism by Zero.)
 * 20:12, 13 Jul 2004  Talk:Anti-Semitism (Simonides is abusive and out of control.)
 * 19:43, 13 Jul 2004  Anti-Semitism (Sysops, please stop Simonides from perverting this article to push his views. He keeps recerting everyone else's work.)
 * 19:42, 13 Jul 2004  Anti-Semitism (VANDALISM ALERT. Simonides is out of control. He keeps deleting other people's text, and inserting Muslim and Christian apologetics.)
 * 19:36, 13 Jul 2004  Anti-Semitism (Stop reverting everyone else's work. Stop inserting Christian and Muslim religious apologetics. You may be taken to arbitration if your vandalism persists.)
 * 14:40, 13 Jul 2004  Israel Shahak (Zero, this is verging on vandalism. Please stop deleting huge chunks of this article, especially about the topic for which this man is most well known.)
 * 13:01, 13 Jul 2004  Israel Shahak (Please stop deleting large portions of this article. This controversy is one of the major reasons that this person is known! Your repeated deletions are censorship.)
 * 12:03, 13 Jul 2004  Anti-Semitism (''Simonides, you are out of control. Stop referring to all edits as vandalism. This is NOT a page about Islam, nor a page about promoting Christianity. Cut it out.
 * 13:31, 12 Jul 2004  Talk:Anti-Zionism (More strawman attacks on Jews. This is turning into classic Jew-baiting. Stop this.)
 * 14:44, 4 Jul 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Stop your non-stop reverts. As Jimbo Wales affirmed, you are violating NPOV and pushing censorship. Stop your use of Wikipedia to push pro-Arab propaganda. For shame.)
 * 14:26, 4 Jul 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (STOP REVERTING THIS ARTICLE. Stop cutting out huge amounts of facts to push pro-Arab views. Your censorship is a POV violation.)
 * 00:58, 3 Jul 2004  Talk:Anti-Semitism (Why is this article still protected? The only problem is Simonides and his anti-Jewish conspiracy theories.)
 * 00:58, 24 Jun 2004  Talk:Anti-Semitism (About the clearly anti-Semitic vandalism by Simonides.)
 * 00:54, 24 Jun 2004  Anti-Semitism (Sysops, an anti-semite has started a revert edit war, and keeps deleting sources which back up claims in this article.)
 * 00:50, 24 Jun 2004  Anti-Semitism (Adding more sources. Simonides, stop your thinly veiled anti-Semitism. Your anti-Jewish agenda on Wikipedia is a violation of our NPOV policy. Also, stop deleting sources.)
 * 23:31, 22 Jun 2004  Mahmoud Abbas (Sero, stop reverting facts that disagree with your pro-Arafat politics. For shame.)
 * 22:24, 13 Jun 2004  Traditional Chinese medicine (Jiang, please stop your reversions. You need to control yourself, and stop pushing your religious beliefs as scientific facts.)
 * 15:15, 20 Apr 2004  Alternative medicine (Sysops, please control Mr Natural Health. He is doing non-stop reversions.)
 * 15:45, 12 Apr 2004  Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process (Refuting bald-faced lies and personal attacks. Sysops, PLEASE stop the pro-Arab Israel bashing and personal attacks)
 * 15:22, 12 Apr 2004  Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process (Sysops, please see Jimbo Wale's comments. Martin Harper is censoring and vandalising this article. Stop his out of control attacks, please.)
 * 15:19, 12 Apr 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Sysops, please see Jimbo Wale's comments. Martin Harper is censoring and vandalising this article. Stop his out of control attacks,)
 * 15:10, 12 Apr 2004  Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8 (Chicago, PLEASE check the Wiki-En list., MNH claims to be a Nazi, and has a history of making threats. Don't fall for his shtick. This is no joke.)
 * 14:51, 12 Apr 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (VANDALISM ALERT. Martin has been warned about his one man campaign of censorship. The Wiki-En list has been notified of his harassment)
 * 14:36, 12 Apr 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (VANDALISM ALERT. Martin has been warned about his one man campaign of censorship. Please speak to him about his non-stop vandalism and hatred of Israel.)
 * 15:00, 11 Apr 2004  Alternative medicine (MNH just doesn't get it. Sysops, please refer MNH again to the strictures against him from the Wiki-En list. Wow! Is he really this dense?)
 * 14:22, 11 Apr 2004  Alternative medicine (MNH just doesn't get it. His non-stop vandalism will not be allowed. Sysops, please refer him again to the strictures from the Wiki-En list.)
 * 15:48, 9 Apr 2004  Traditional Chinese medicine (Sysops, please talk o Heidimo, He keeps pushing his religious views and censoring valid scientific views. He is really out of control.)
 * 02:06, 9 Apr 2004  Traditional Chinese medicine (Stop false accusations of vandalism, and stop pushing your Chinese religious beliefs. Your violation of Wikipedia policy is troubling.)
 * 18:11, 27 Mar 2004  Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process (Please help stop Martin's anti-Israeli vandalism. He has no right to unilaterally censor information to push his Arab cause.)
 * 18:06, 27 Mar 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (VANDALISM ALERT. Martin has been warned about his one man campaign of censorship. Please speak to him about his balnking of this article.)
 * 21:08, 3 Feb 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Reverting vandalism by Viajero and Martin Harper. The Wiki-En has been notified of this repeated vandalism, and of Martin's refusal to mediate.)
 * 14:50, 31 Jan 2004  User:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK (Removing violation of Wiki-etiquette, and clear harassment. Martin is againt out of control. Sysops, please delete this hatepage.)
 * 14:47, 25 Jan 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Reverting vandalism by Martin Harper (MyRedDice) As discussed on the Wiki-En list, this mass deletion for political purposes #is# vandalism and censorship, and will not be accepted.)
 * 14:02, 25 Jan 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Removing vast amount of censorship by Martin Harper. (Advocated of anti-Semitic postings should not be censoring this article.))
 * 22:31, 11 Jan 2004  Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Again, please stop left-wing censorship. Allow readers to make up their own minds. Your actions have been reported to the Wiki-En list.)
 * 22:04, 11 Jan 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Viajero, please do not be dishonest about the consensus. See the Wiki-En list. Your removal of quotes has already been condemned as unfair censorship. Please stop trolling.)
 * 14:17, 11 Jan 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Reverting censorship based on hatred of Israel. Action on the Wiki-En list has been taken. Censoring user has a long history of personal attacks.)
 * 14:15, 11 Jan 2004  Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Reverting anti-Israeli, left-wing censorship and POV violations. Martin, your actions have been reported.)
 * 13:49, 11 Jan 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Reverting censorship based on hatred of Israel. Action on the Wiki-En list has been taken. Censoring user has a long history of personal attacks.)
 * 13:34, 11 Jan 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Removing gross censorship, and bald-faced lies. (No copyright violations occured. Martin is just doing a Danny, and deleting quotes he wants to censor.))
 * 01:12, 11 Jan 2004  User talk:RK (fuck you sick Nazi bastards - repeated insults from Martine deleted. Martins' behavior is spiraling out of control. Response to Adam Carr's attack on me.)
 * 02:07, 9 Jan 2004  Israeli-Palestinian conflict (VANDALISM ALERT. This is no joke. Danny is hysterically out of control. And allowing Palestinians to speak for themselves is not "right-wing bias". That is hysterical, if not insane.)
 * 02:00, 9 Jan 2004  Talk:Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Sysops, please help, Danny and Zero are repeatedly vandalizing this article. This is gross censorship and vandalism. They are totally out of control.)
 * 15:18, 2 Jan 2004  History of anti-Semitism (Um, some out and out Jew-haters are calling us "Jewish supremacists" in the comment lines. We shouldn't allow edits on this article from anti-Semites.)
 * 13:52, 31 Dec 2003  Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Reverting gross vandalism by Zero0000. This is not a joke. This is a deliberate attempt at vandalism.)
 * 14:25, 21 Dec 2003  Israel Shahak (Removing gross censorship by Zero. Zero, stop pushing your anti-Zionist bias. These are #major# points that you are trying to hide. For shame.)
 * 19:37, 20 Dec 2003  Israel Shahak (Removing critical material shamelessly censored by Zero. His hugest controversies are important points to mention, and not embarassments to hide. For shame.)
 * 15:47, 6 Dec 2003  Peter Singer (Danny, please stop vandalising this article by writing provably false statements. That is a violation of NPOV and Wikipedia policy. Please calm down.)
 * 15:46, 6 Dec 2003  Talk:Peter Singer (Danny, stop vandalising this article by deleting other people's comments. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia etiquette.)
 * 15:28, 6 Dec 2003  Peter Singer (Danny, get control over youself. We are talking about fucking animals and murdering babies and old people. Are your edits a joke, or are you serious...?)
 * 13:37, 6 Dec 2003  Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8 (Removing personal attcks from Mr-Natural-Health, who is close to being a vandal. He is pushing his own views for financial gain/)
 * 02:47, 25 Nov 2003  Talk:Zionism (It has nothing to do with intelligence. Zero0000 has committed libel by fabricating beliefs I do not have, and making me out to be a bigot.)
 * 02:27, 25 Nov 2003  Talk:Zionism (Zeroooo, please stop slanderous lies. Control your rage. I will alert Sysops to your violation of Wikipedia protocol and libel.)
 * 01:32, 4 Nov 2003  Talk:Gaia philosophy (Responding to trolling and personal attacks by Cimon.)
 * 01:25, 4 Nov 2003  Gaia philosophy (Cimon, please stop your mass reversions, your lies about my own statements, and stop attacking things I have never said. You need to get some sort of control over your anger.)
 * 15:30, 2 Nov 2003  Islam (PLEASE! Stop your mass deletions, your mass reversions, and your edit war. Your behaviour is totally unacceptable, and a total violation of Wikipedia policy.)
 * 03:23, 27 Oct 2003  Anti-Semitism (Reverting Danny's one person edit war. Please see Talk page. Danny is out of control, and has gutted nearly the entire article.)
 * 03:21, 27 Oct 2003  User talk:Danny (Danny, you are now overly emotional. Please stop unilaterally gutting this anti-Semitism article)
 * 03:09, 27 Oct 2003  Anti-Semitism (Reverting vandalism by Danny. Sysops, please see Talk page. Danny is gutting this entire essay to push his own POV. He is emotional, and becoming out of control.)
 * 03:00, 27 Oct 2003  Talk:Anti-Semitism (Please stop hysterically deletin material.)
 * 02:53, 27 Oct 2003  Anti-Semitism (Danny, your personal crusade to delete everything you personally disagree with is now out of control. Stop this destructive behaviour. Do not claim ownership.)
 * 02:35, 21 Oct 2003  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Adam / Lir is on a censorship rampage, riding roughshod over group consensus. She/he is back to his/her old harassment.)
 * 02:25, 21 Oct 2003  Talk:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Adam, aka Lir, aka Pizza Puzzle, is again censoring opinions that he disagrees with, and is making edits at the rate of one a minute.)
 * 14:32, 10 Oct 2003  User talk:RK (Toby Bartels is a bald faced liar. That's just pathetic,)
 * 23:54, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While you are harassing me and slandering Catholics and Jews, this page will be blanked. What is so hard to understand about this?)
 * 23:43, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (While censorship, Jew-baiting and Catholic bashing is being practiced, this page WILL be blanked.)
 * 23:42, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Removing Stevertigo's offtopic rants about the USA and the State of Israel. His hatred of Israel has nothing to do with Christian-Jewish relations)
 * 23:41, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Removing anti-Catholic polemics. This is not Usenet. Peddle your hatred elsewhere.)
 * 23:37, 1 Oct 2003  User talk:RK (REMOVING HARASSMENT FROM MARTIN)
 * 21:31, 1 Oct 2003  User talk:RK (Martin, stop vandalizing my home page. Your behaviour has been reported.)
 * 21:22, 1 Oct 2003  User talk:RK (reverting vandalism by Martin. Stop the Jew-baiting. Your actions have been reported.)
 * 16:41, 1 Oct 2003  User talk:RK (Stop writing on my page, Stevertigo and Martin. Your anti-Semitic harassment has been noted, and sent to the WikiEn list. )
 * 16:17, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (WARNING. Anti-Semitic racists have vandalized this page and protected it.)
 * 14:35, 1 Oct 2003  Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Removing bald-faced anti-Semitic lie. Guys, these attacks on Jews are NOT funny.)
 * 14:25, 1 Oct 2003  Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Removing Stevertigo's rant about the US, Israel, oil and Arabs. Off topic POV pushing to attack israel is not appropriate. Removing fake statements about Catholic Vatican II.)
 * 13:59, 1 Oct 2003  Israeli-Palestinian conflict (reverting gross falsehood by Zero0000. His "facts" are a total fiction, that he has made up. This is shameful and dishonest behaviour.)
 * 13:55, 1 Oct 2003  Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Sysop alert. Stevertigo and Martin and newuser are adding anti-Semitic rants, with no basis in facts, solely to attack Jews. )
 * 01:09, 1 Oct 2003  Christian-Jewish reconciliation (VANDALISM ALERT. New user is pushing anti-Catholic bigotry. Please help control him.)
 * 00:24, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation ( Please stop your anti-Semitic Jew-bating. I really have enough of your hatred and contempt towards Jews.)
 * 00:20, 1 Oct 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (VANDALISM ALERT. Martin (MyRedDice) is editing out comments he doesn't like. He also is encouraging anti-Catholic bashing and anti-Semitic slander.)
 * 00:09, 1 Oct 2003  User talk:RK (Stevertigo, stop your outrageous anti-Semitic slander.)
 * 20:51, 30 Sep 2003  Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation (Responding to anti-Semitic distribe and anti-Catholic pompous arrogance.)
 * 16:04, 26 Sep 2003  Edward Said (Restoring text censored by pro-Artab participants. Whitewashing this man's statements and actions is a gross act of censorship.)
 * 14:02, 26 Sep 2003  Mel Gibson (Reverting gross censorship, based on paritipants personal hatred of me. Do not censor Mel Gibson's own beliefs to suit your own political agenda.)
 * 14:02, 26 Sep 2003  Talk:Mel Gibson (I will revert shameful censorship by bigots who are hiding Mel; Gibson's beliefs and statements. Censorship is not a part of Wikipedia policy. Removing off-topic personal slander.)
 * 23:22, 25 Sep 2003  Mel Gibson (Reverting vandalism by a clearly anti-Semitic user. He claims that it is "racist" to describe Mel Gibson's beliefs, and the beliefs of his father. )
 * 20:49, 18 Sep 2003  Modern Islamic philosophy (Removing anti-American and anti-Jewish diatribes by our anonymous idiot, who is trying to push his POV on all Islam related articles. For shame.)
 * 17:21, 29 Aug 2003  Talk:Ethics (Refuting bald-faced lies, and apparent genuine paranoid, by an out of control person who just can't speak English well.)
 * 15:37, 26 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Deleting outrageous libel and harssment. WikiEn list has been informed of harassment by Martin and Entmoots Of Trools. DO NOT restore this page.)
 * 01:09, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia talk:Community case RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified.)
 * 01:09, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified.)
 * 01:00, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia talk:Community case RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. (Amazing how stupid some people are. They don't notice the pattern...))
 * 00:26, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Removing sick and hateful comments by some rather sick, disturbed people. Sysops, I am requesting an official vandalism alert.)
 * 00:11, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Seriously, I truly believe that we are dealing with mentally ill people. Stop this sick, sick harassment and hatespeech. You really do need to see a therapist.)
 * 23:59, 23 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Six pages about banning are not enough? Fuck off, you sicko.)
 * 23:50, 23 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (The fact that there are now six pages about banning me is a clear sign of very sick, violent hatred. EoT, Martin, everyone else..see a fucking therapist. There is something seriously wrong with you.)
 * 19:11, 21 Aug 2003  Talk:Creationism/Archive 6 (Response to Netesq's baldfaced fabrications, and fundamentalist deceptive math tricks. LOL!)
 * 16:49, 21 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (VANDALISM ALERT: EntmootsOfTrolls is deliberately setting up circular links as a form of harassment. He has done this multiple times. Please stop this deliberate harassment.)
 * 19:14, 20 Aug 2003  User talk:RK (Removing paranoid ranting from a seriously disturbed individual.)
 * 16:48, 20 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Dozens of ravings by a mentally ill lunatic removed, and put onto his own home page. Sysops, please see if you can stop this sick man from harassing me. Seriously. This is harassment)
 * 16:47, 20 Aug 2003  User talk:Tlotoxl (Advice from RK. No one is censoring you; please do not believe that I am out to get you. EoT is just a very disturbed person.)
 * 16:42, 20 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (This page is not about RK. It was a series of hatespeech, lies and slander from EntMootsofTrolls, who honestly has some sort of mental illness. His diatribes have been movedback to his page,.)
 * 16:30, 20 Aug 2003  User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls (Moving text to here from my page. Eot's comments on me, me, me and...on me. (Sick obsession, this man has.))
 * 16:29, 20 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Since all of this has to do with EntmootsofTrolls, and his sick obsession with me, and I am moving this text to his page. In all seriousness, this is all about EoT.)
 * 02:36, 13 Aug 2003  Zionism and racism (What about this is contested and NPOV disputed? Unless you admit that you are a Jew-hating antisemite, what is to fear from studying history?)
 * 02:32, 13 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Please stop the blatant anti-Semites from banning me for the sin of discussing history. This non-stop and bald-faced anti-Semitism is horrific. )
 * 01:45, 8 Aug 2003  User talk:172 (Restoring slander, abuse and lies. 172 can try to ban me, if he wishes. But man, his outrageous anger is just really out of control.)
 * 01:39, 8 Aug 2003  User talk:172 (Please stop the non-stop slander and lies. This is abuse.)
 * 15:19, 7 Aug 2003  User talk:RK (I am shocked to see you so stupid, and so confused. You have thus shot your own credibility in the foot. Goodbye, 172)
 * 23:08, 6 Aug 2003  Talk:Qibya massacre (Murdering ONLY 24 Jews is not enough to constitute terrorism? By what Nazi like standards do you operate? Please cease and desist in your hatespeech.)
 * 14:48, 6 Aug 2003  User talk:RK (172, the problem is that Jtdirl labels most Jews and many Christians as racist bigots; so what does this tell you?)
 * 14:38, 3 Jul 2003  Talk:Anti-Semitism (Sysops, please awar: MArtin (MyRedDice) is censoring and deleting other user's Talk discussion. I am concerned about his attempt to hide his repeated acts of Jew-baiting.)
 * 00:58, 2 Jul 2003  Jew (Removing Ezra Wax's egregiously incorrect claims. Is he trolling? Making this stuff up? He isn't even representing the Orthodox POV. He's just wacky.)
 * 01:51, 29 Jun 2003  Talk:Gaia hypothesis (Since you keep attacking a claim I am not making, I can only assume that you don't read English well, or you are just trolling)
 * 01:48, 29 Jun 2003  Gaia (mythology) (Reverting Anthere's confusion. This article is about a Greek goddess, not science. Stop your trolling, Anthere,.)
 * 01:41, 29 Jun 2003  User talk:Anthere (Anthere, stop your trolling.)

Threats of banning and demands for bans

 * 02:38, 27 Aug 2004 Talk:Jew (Can we ban the Nazi troll? It is a violation of Wikipedia policy for such abuse to continue.)
 * 22:30, 26 Aug 2004 Talk:Jew (NO PERSONAL ATTACKS POLICY. Removing more Nazi hatespeech against Jews. Sysops, please ban this person.)
 * 02:51, 12 Aug 2004 Kuzari (Jayjg is censoring everything that is not Orthodox. He is now under discussion for banning.)
 * 02:41, 12 Aug 2004 Responsa (Jayjg is censoring everything that is not Orthodox. He is now under discussion for banning.)
 * 17:18, 11 Aug 2004 Minyan (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and will could get a one-day ban. Still, I am offering a compromise text.)
 * 17:09, 11 Aug 2004 The Passion of the Christ (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and will could get a one-day ban.)
 * 15:33, 11 Aug 2004 The Passion of the Christ (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and will could get a one-day ban.)
 * 15:32, 11 Aug 2004 Minyan (Jayjg, stop reverting every single one of my edits. One more revert by you and will could get a one-day ban.)
 * 17:54, 9 Aug 9 2004 Talk:Role of women in Judaism (You are not helping us create an article; you are merely censorsing it to push your religious point of view, and that is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards  that could eventually get you banned.)
 * 20:23, 27 Jul 2004  Philosophy (Banno and Sysops, please help. Simonides is again reverting every single change made by anyone other than him. He may need to be banned.)
 * 15:35, 22 Jul 2004  Talk:Anti-Semitism (Until Simonides agrees with mediation or is banned, there is nothing we can do. Currently, he is totally out of control.)
 * 17:21, 21 Jul 2004  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism (Izak may need to be banned for his abusive behaviour.)
 * 00:25, 25 Jun 2004  Talk:Zionism (ZW must be immediately banned. This is no joke. Legal action may need to be taken. NO JOKE.)
 * 13:14, 13 Jun 2004  Palestinian views of the peace process (Please stop contantly reverting this page. Discuss issues one at a time on the "Discussion" part of this topic. Mirv, you are bordering on bannable behaviour.)
 * 14:34, 12 Apr 2004  Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process (Removing personal insults and violation of Wikipedia protocol. Sysops, please ban MNH immediately)
 * 15:32, 11 Apr 2004  Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8 (Libel by My Natural Health. Sysops, please ban him immediately.)
 * 15:04, 11 Apr 2004  Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 8 (Libel by My Natural Health. Sysops, please ban him immediately.)
 * 18:04, 27 Mar 2004  Alternative medicine (Removinh nonsense from an internet vandal. Mr-Natural-Health is on the verge of being banned for his harassment)
 * 20:48, 6 Jan 2004  Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Danny, stop vandalising this article. This is no joke. Your repeated mass deletions are censorship and may get you banned. Stop pushing your left-wing political views.)
 * 23:45, 7 Dec 2003  User talk:Mr-Natural-Health (Just now Mr-Natural-Health sent the following private e-mail to me. If this is not grounds for immediate banning, nothing is.)
 * 01:11, 2 Dec 2003  Talk:Dating the Bible ( stupid clueless fuck ?!?! Please ban this user.)
 * 02:23, 21 Oct 2003  People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Adam (Lir) is censoring opinions that he wishes to hide, despite consensus of the Talk page. He is back to his old habits which got him/her banned in the past.)
 * 23:31, 1 Sep 2003  Talk:Near sacrifice of Isaac (Rednblu admits rabidly anti-Semitic views: He believes that Jews are willing to sacrifice (murder) gentiles. Good job! Saves us the time of spending weeks trying to ban you.)
 * 21:19, 29 Aug 2003  Talk:Ethics (Removing anonymous and signed slander and lies by EntmootsOfTrolls. This user will be banned shortly if he continues his harassment.)
 * 01:03, 24 Aug 2003  User talk:RK/A Liberal Defense of Zionism (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. Author of this article is already under consideration for banning, for his abuse.)
 * 01:02, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. Netesq is now added to list of those risking a ban.)
 * 00:56, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. Netesq is now added to list of those risking a ban.)
 * 00:54, 24 Aug 2003  User talk:RK (The pages you mention have already been decided upon as being violations of Wikipedia norms. Those people are risking bans for their harassment.)
 * 00:49, 24 Aug 2003  Wikipedia talk:Community case RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified of abuse. EntmootsOfTrolls is already under warning of ban for his actions.)
 * 22:59, 21 Aug 2003  User talk:RK/ban Archive2 (Sysops, EntmootsOfTrolls is only escalating his abuse, and is creating yet more hate filled articles. Please ban this vandal; he is totally out of hand.)
 * 22:58, 21 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Sysops, please ban EntmootsOfTrools. He is vandalizing my user page on an hourly basis. Despite warnings from others, he just won't stop.)
 * 22:41, 21 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Sysops, please ban EntmootsOfTrools. He is vandalizing Wikipedia on an hourly basis. This is no joke.)
 * 18:41, 21 Aug 2003  Wikipedia:Community case RK (Reverting vandalim by EntmootsOfTrolls. Please ban that harasser.)
 * 16:22, 21 Aug 2003  User talk:RK (SYSOP ALERT: Please ban Entmoots of trolls. This mentally ill person is again vandalizing my home page. I do not wish to initiate further action, but his sick harassment has to end.)
 * 16:02, 21 Aug 2003  User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban RK (VANDALISM ALERT. Seriously, Sysops. This man appears to be mentally ill; this is no joke. Please ban him. He is totally out of control, and is raving like a demented lunatic. I )
 * 02:34, 13 Aug 2003  Talk:Zionism and racism (The above is a classic case of bald-faced anti-Semitism. Wiki Sysops, please ban this blatant and open antisemite. )
 * 18:07, 1 Jul 2003  Gaia philosophy (Reverting Anthere;'s POV violations, again. This is the English Wikipedia, and not Anthere's personal wish list of she wishes English speakers would use this term. Please ban that vandal. Seriously.)
 * 02:04, 29 Jun 2003  Gaia (mythology) (Sigh. I give. This is officially a VANDALISM alert. Anthere keeps shoving science facts into this article on a Greek goddess. Please ban her.)

Earlier warning from Jimmy Wales
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-October/007574.html

-- Dissident (Talk) 08:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Abusive talk page comments
''Self-explanatory I think. —No-One Jones 19:11, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)''
 * Saying that "anti-Semitic" is an inherently POV term is only used by anti-Semites. Watch your attacks carefully. You are clearly pushing anti-Semitic views with your defense of the Nazis and KKK might not be anti-Semitic. That is only pushed by Holocaust-deniers, Christian Idenitity adherents and others who hate Jews. (note that RK previously deleted the post to which he replied in this edit, so the diff is harder to read.)
 * You are simply lying. You debated her above, and then a few minutes later, you debated her points below! Stop playing games. [...] Stop lying. I said the exact opposite, that I will not discuss or debate Hauptman's point of view with you. Further, stop lying about Professor Hauptman's paper; she says the exact opposite of what you claim. Your repeated lies about me and her only further diminish your credibility.
 * You clearly haven't done enough reading on this subject. Stop deleting text about topics of which you do not yet know enought. You are not helping us create an article; you are merely censorsing it to push your religious point of view, and that is a clear violation of Wikipedia standards that could eventually get you banned. [...] Stop your nonsense. You know darn well that this is a mainstream modern Orthodox Jewish point of view, and your claims that I am pushing my views onto them are a damned lie. I will thank you very much to stop lying about Orthodox Jewish women and about me.
 * Also, you are making up fake quotes about Conservative Judaism's founding documents. You repeatedly insert fraudulent quotes about how Conservative Jews were founded to fight against "Insane Orthodoxy and Stupid reform". The problem is that this is a bald-faced lie; none of the Conservative movement's ay anything of this sort; your so-called "quotes" are shockingly deliberate fraud meant to encourage hatred between Jews.
 * You have now passed from partisan bickering into bald-faced lying. You are making up things which were not in Rabbi Regev's speech, you are falsely attributing his views to the entire Reform leadership, and you disingenuously deleted his actual quotes on the subject. Your behaviour over the last week has worsened significantly, but you outright fraud and hatespeech against non-Orthodox Jews has crossed the line.
 * At this point, I am wondering if Izak may be distubred. He is now not only abusive, but ranting and raving about people accusing him of some sort of "crime". He is so clearly out of touch with reality, that he is hysterically attacking statements that no one has made. [...] Again, I am wondering i Izak may have some sort of mental illness. As readers of this page can see, no one is threatening him, or anyone else. His hysterical rants are totally out of control, and he may need to be temporarilly banned until he pulls himself together.
 * Huh? You are deleting this section because too many Jews want to end discrimination against Muslims? That's anti-Semitic. [. . .] This edit is anti-Semitic, pure and simple. You want to continue the belief that the entire west hates Muslims, and that Jews hate Muslims, and you are hiding the fact that most Jews do not hate all Muslims. For shame. [. . .] Your recent actions are hysterica, a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy, and anti-Semitic.
 * You have now exposed yourself as a Muslim hating bigot. Sufi Islam is not a cult. No experts in cults in American or Europe believe that Sufi Islam is a cult. In fact, Sufi Islam is universally acknowledge by experts on Islam across the US and America as a mainstream form of Islam known for peace, tolerance and religious pluralism. You are writing hateful libel in order to slander Muslims who promote peace. This shows your bias to view violent Muslim as the only real Muslims.
 * That is simply a lie. Your distortion of the content of this article, and your distortion of the views of Jewish groups, are straw-man attacks on views that are not written, not believed. Your self-proclaimed war against the Zionists has turned into classic Jew-baiting, and this is a seriou violation of Wikipedia policy. Stop the Jew-baiting at once. As you well no, no Jewish group has ever claimed that a criticism of an Israeli policy or government is anti-Semitism; no on here on Wikipedia here is saying that either. Your repeated claims to the contrary are Jew-baiting strawman attacks which are a violation of common decency.
 * Since Zero has a history of supporting anti-Semites, I would not think his vote matters very much here. This is not a joke.
 * We cannot unprotect the page. Simonides has vowed that he will continue to vandalize it by removing huge chunks of consensus text, and will refuse to allow anyone to do any edit at all unless he approves. He also has slandered every contributor to this page other than himself. Until Simonides agrees with mediation or is banned, there is nothing we can do. Currently, he is totally out of control.
 * As Steve Rubenstein has noted, Simonides is rude and abusive, and is deleting large chunks of information to only replace them with his own personal opinions. Simonides further has a habit of inserting Muslim and Christian apologetics, and of repeatedly trying to turn this into an article on "Why Jews don't have it as bad as Muslims." He keeps reverting everyone else's additions and edits; argues with every contributor, and has assumed total ownership of this article. Jayjg, Slr and others, we need to take Simonides to arbitration, or perhaps let him know that further abuse from him will be grounds for a ban.
 * Simonides' repeated claims about the Jews (e.g. that they consider all criticisms of Israel to be anti-Semitic)are Jew-baiting strawman attacks. They are not only factually false (and thus have no place in an encyclopedia), but will only serve to encourage open anti-Semitism.
 * Your non-stop anti-Jewish conspiracy theories are a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and of our NPOV policy.
 * The problem here was Simonides' repeated vandalism, and his conspiracy theory about "special interests", i.e. the Jews.
 * Simonides keeps deleting sources and facts which back up the claims in this article, and then he makes polemical remarks about howthe resurgence of anti-Semitism is untrue and baseless. Well of course the article may appear baseless if he keeps deleting all the source material and references. But he is the one doing the censoring! Unless he wishes to accuse the EU, the Secretary General of the UN, all of he recently cited authors, and the ADL all of conspiring to lie about this rise in anti-Semitic activity, we can only conclude that he is a crank trying to make it look like Jews are liars. We shoudl not let this troll vandalize the article.
 * Yet once again you have an anti-semitic bias. I can't help you, man. Get over it. [. . .]
 * Zero, your outrageous lies against me do not jsutify your vandalism of this article. [. . .] Your refusal to follow NPOV policy may eventually end up getting you banned. [. . .]
 * Please ignore Bk0's anti-Semitic Bible conspiracy theories. The entry on Bible conspiracy theories explains where he comes from, and it isn't anyplace historically respectable. (Note that there is currently an edit war on that article. Zero and Mustafa find the info their inconvinent, so they keep deleting it all. Zero does that on many articles.
 * User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a flame war. [. . .]
 * You have a wordy way of saying "I hate the Jews". Why not just say it outright? Its not like we don't understand what you are really saying.
 * ero is hell bent on making Jews out look to be intolerant ethnic cleansers, and is infuriated whenever he finds Jewish words about peaceful co-existence. It is his moral blind spot.
 * Martin Haper is lying. Jimbo Wales's words are quoted in full context. Martin has not "improved" the article; he has simply deleted almost every fact and quote, in order to promote his pro-Arab, anti-Israel political agenda. That is outrageous. His non-stop reverts and censorship must be stopped.
 * It is now apparent that you yourself have a hatred of some rather mainstream Arab beliefs, and thus lie about Arabs themselves when they say opinions that you personally happen to disagree with. It is so sad to see someone so delusional, that they project their own liberal bias onto others, and then fly into a rage when they find out that (gasp!) others are not always liberals! [. . .] The fact of the matter is that you are slandering the Arab press as lying about their own leaders...and then claiming that all these quotes are from Israeli Jews? Are you out of your mind? You falsely claim that these quotes are from Jewish sources, when in fact they are all from Arab sources? You obviously have zero reading on this issue. Please refrain from contributing as long as you make up conspiracy theories that Jews control the Arab press, and that the Jews are faking Arab quotes in the Arab press. That's either anti-Semitic, or insane.
 * [...]If you don't accept this as policy, then what about the recent story circulating on the Internet that Shahak's story was true...except that it wasn't "the Jews" who did this thing, but rather it was Dan's family! Should we now believe this about you and your family, just because someone made an outrageous claim, with no evidence? (no.) Dan, you have an unfair double-standard. When people make claims about you and your family, you demand that we do not accept such claims without proof. But when people make the exact same claims about Jews...you accept it?[...]
 * Slr and Danny: It is now clear that Ezra Wax is vandalizing Wikipedia. He is totally out of control, writing pro-Ultra-Orthodox Jewish polemics and proselytization. We have attempted to work with him, but he continues to override the Wikipedia project, and refuses all attempts to maintain any type of NPOV. He is now emarking on what I can only term vandalism by inserting a large number of deliberately non-NPOV entries based on his own person view of what Judaism should be. He needs to be banned, and immediately so. He simply is writing factually false material, errors, and non-NPOV polemics faster than we can correct them. We need to ask the moderators to ban his address.

Posts to the mailing list
''These are from June, July, and August 2004. They should be self-explanatory, though reading all the responses helps provide context. If the arbitrators decide that these are beyond their purview, please delete this section forthwith. —No-One Jones 19:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)''
 * Danny's harrassment
 * Danny is making crazy statements like this [...] The sad problem is that Danny is outrageously lying. [...] Danny's claims to the contray are so baseless that I can't fathom his mental state.[...] Danny yells at me "Causality is interpretive. You are arguing from authority, not from knowledge. I do not respond to meaningless rhetoric. Perhaps if you knew Hebrew grammar" [...] Danny is absolutely enraged that people can translate verses differently than he does, and that they can come to different conclusions than he does. [...] Danny's non-stop personal attacks, and grossly false claims about the content of the article, are a serious violation of Wikipedia etiqutte. If someone else were to do this, they would be disciplined. But what do we do when we are harassed by a Wikipedia administrator?

 * Diffs and sources
 * Unfortunately, Jayjg is not letting facts get in his way. He is intent on painting Reform Jews as viewing Orthodox Jews as terrorists and murderers.

 * Until a few days ago, I never saw Jayjg make false claims, but now he is going on a tear. He is doing the same thing in regards to other people and groups, which I can document if you wish. The point is that something on his side has changed, and I don't know what, or why. But we cannot allow people to insert false information bordering on libel into our articles.

 * Jayjg is still inserting fraudulent info and changing protected pages.
 * Jayjg is now out of control. He is again putting forged quotes into articles, creating deliberate lies and presenting them as facts, and is editing protected articles.

 * He needs to be banned for at least a week, starting now.

 * Jayjg is the only one in the group engaging in outright fraud, the only one engaged in a non-stop series of reversions, and the only one engaging in wholesale decit...Please enforce the standard Wikipedia rules and ban him.

 * Response to Jayjg's claims
 * One man's disputation of facts is no excuse for forgery and libel. You have publicly attacked the leadership of Reform Judaism as haters of Orthodox Jews, by falsely claiming that they view Orthodox Jews as 9/11-style terrorists. Yet the text you keep inserting is a series of proven libels based not on fact, and not on quotes. [. . .]

 * [. . .] [Y]ou disingenuously keep deleting actual verifiable quotes from the leadership of Reform Judaism. How you can delete verifiable quotes, and substitute paranoid claims from a fanatic person who admits to hating the subject?

 * A problem in one of our articles with Jayjg
 * Jayjg has passed from partisan bickering into vandalism: He is effectively committing fraud by making up statements by "the leadership of Reform Judaism", making them out to be anti-Semites who hate Orthodox Jews.

 * [. . .]

 * The text which Jayjg keeps inserting is some sort of paranoid fantasy about the leadership of Reform Judaism slandering Orthodox Jews, in general, as being as evil as terrorists like Osama bin Ladin.

 * Jayjg is now committing fraud and falsifying quotes.

 * Jayjg is now committing outright vandalism by inserting fake quotes into the article on Relationship between segments of Judaism. This is not a matter of how to phrase someone's point of view in accord with NPOV policy; the problem is that he is totally fabricating beliefs and quotes, and attempting to pass them off as real. He is totally out of control.

 * Ray's anti-Semitic violent attacks on the Jews for not forgiving Nazis
 * Ray's attacks on the Jews for not forgiving Nazis is not only off-topic, but outrageously hateful. Without any exagerration, his argument comes directly from Neo-Nazi websites. This is no joke. Please look at the many Nazi websites on the Internet; they have precisely the same argument Ray uses here.

 * Simonides is out of control.
 * We have a serious problem with a new user, Simonides. The man is out of control. On multiple articles Simonides has attempted to take ownership of articles. He then attacks many other contributors with ad homenim attacks, slanders them, reverts all of their edits, deletes large chunks of texts from articles, and then refuses to engage in any productive discussions on the talk page.

 * NPOV policy on Israel Shahak and Richard Wagner articles
 * For over a year now Zero has been taunting me with personal attacks, slander, and taunting with attacks on any Jews who differ with him. Zero constantly deletes chunks of articles, in order to censor facts that he disagrees with. Shockingly, the deleted material isn't even contested; Zero flat out admits that the groups mentioned have the views presented.

 * Edit war on Islamophobia
 * Like Zero and others, John Ball is not acting in good faith. What do we do when someone publicly states that they will refuse to follow our NPOV policy, and simply engages in non-stop revert wars to remove all POVs that they personally do not hold?

 * Situation getting worse with Islamophobia article
 * The situation with John Ball and the Islamophobia article is now totally out of hand. John Ball is also publicly slandering religious committed Muslims, such as Muhammad Hisham Kabbani, of racist anti-Islamic propaganda. That's not just incorrect, it borders on insane.

 * "John Ball" is revealing himself to be an Islamist contributor who wants to remove all facts, statistics and points of view from anyone who themselves is not pro-Islamist. He sees any form of Islam as an enemy, except for his own form. People like this rarely learn to follow NPOV.

 * Zero and NPOV: He is avoding the issue by trying to ban me

 * The long-standing problem with Zero isn't his belief that Jews are racist. That's irrevelant. He can believe anything he likes about Jews, blacks, gays, whomever. However, the long-standing problem is that he refuses to let any POV be mentioned except his own. Zero constantly refuses to follow POV. And *that* has always been a bannable offense.

 * So we have a choice. (A) Ban Zero. (B) Privately talk to him, and explain that all points of view must be included, even those we happen to disagree with. And mention that discussion on Talk pages should be about how to phrase facts in the article, and not focused on one person's beliefs about the content.

 * Anthere has abused her authority
 * Anthere has now clearly overstepped her authority. She has picked one version of an article which deleted and censored all info which did not agree with her her anti-Zionist views, and then she protected the page. This is outrageous behaviour from a Sysop.

 * I understand that many people here hate Israel and Jews who support it, that much has been clear for some time. But such hatred is rarely so blatant as this: To falsify history by deleting entire historical accounts and quotes, to spin a fantastic pro-Arab, anti-Zionist storyline, and to lock the article, is just too much.

 * No more outing. No more threats. This is not a joke.
 * User ZW must be banned immediately. I do not want to have to threaten legal action, but ZW has no right to post personal information about any Wikipedia users, whether it is correct or incorrect, especially in the context of a flame war.

Ad hominem/Poisoning the Well

 *
 * Jayjg is an ultra-Orthodox Jewish contributor... Jayjg kept on acting as if every statement made contained some sort of hidden attack on his religion...However in recent days his ultra-Orthodox bias against all other forms of Judaism have overwhelmed his common sense...Readers should understand that many people in Jayjg's sect of Judaism believe that any form of Orthodox or non-Orthodox Judaism (other than their own, of course) is dangerous and dishonest... perhaps he was taught this by his teachers, and cannot believe that they misled him.

 *
 * As an ultra-Orthodox Jew, Jayjg has been taught to distrust all other Jews, Orthodox and non-Orthodox. Although I feel sorry for him, I can at least try to understand why he feels that everyone is an enemy to him...

 *
 * We do not care how much you and your rabbi dislike regular Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews; that does not justify falsifying facts;

 *
 * No, we will not remove these quotes that you obviously find embarassing, and wish to hide to push your Point of view. You clearly have an agenda to hide any facts about Orthodox Judaism that you find embarassing, and you have written bald-faced lies about Reform Jews, in order to make them all look like anti-Semites who hate Orthodox Jews. Your actions in recent days have been outrageous. We will not allow anyone to demnonize Reform Jews and make them look like anti-Semites. It is not a matter of a point of view; the words you wrote were flat-out lies, and had to be removed.

 *
 * Unfortunately, you still have a tendency to to hide any facts about Haredi Judaism that you find embarassing, which makes it impossible to write an article.

 *
 * Please stop deleting from the article all information about Haredi actions which you find embarssing; that is not NPOV, that is censorship.

Deletion of current disputes involving RK from Talk: pages

 * "Removing off-topic harassment from anonymous abuser."
 * "Previous discussions have now been moved to a separate article." [Note: No material was actually moved to a separate article, but simply deleted]
 * "Removing inappropripare personal comments about RK's personal non-Wikipedia essays by IZak."
 * "Revert anti-Semitic edits by Cadr. He has gove over-the-edge by saying that the word "anti-Semitic" is inherently POV" (RK later restored and replied to this text.)


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Statement of complaint
RK is legendary for his offensive behavior towards other Wikipedians over years. He is especially notorious for accusing his opponents of anti-Semitism. Now he is repeatedly calling two respected Wikipedians Zero and User:DanKeshet "anti-Semites". This cannot be tolerated and I am asking the arbitration committee to put an end to it. This charge does not involve a particular single article. Typical of RK's recent behavior is his edit summary "Sysops, please stop Zero's ad homenim personal attacks and anti-Semitic Jew bashing" and "Responding to Dan's anti-Semitic canards" on Talk:Israel Shahak. In that talk page you can also find several charges of anti-Semitism, as well as intentional distortions of the words of Dan and myself. Another example appears in this edit of another article. In addition, mention can be made of RK's slanders and distortions on the WikiEN mailing list, such as here, here, and here. Note that I am not referring to disagreements over the facts covered by the said articles. I am big enough to handle robust disagreements over facts and how to present them. This complaint only concerns the practice of using abuse and lies against other editors. I'm sure the committee is well aware that I am hardly the first Wikipedian to make such complaints about RK. Additional examples of RK's antisocial behavior can be found listed at Community case RK, Requests for comment/RK2, and other similar places I can't find just now. I have to say that I never thought I would be taking this step as generally speaking I stay clear of such activities. But I consider anti-Semites to be the lowest of scum and there is only so many times I can accept being accused of being one. --Zero 09:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (original request 13:25, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC))

 * I would like to see some action taken against this user; I have been here for just over a month and from early on this user has engaged in incredible harassment of all kinds, which I listed here Requests for comment/RK2, and over here Requests for mediation/Archive 8. This user has repeatedly created abusive sections on Talk pages, or edits, and posted a message to the whole Wiki-en mailing list with my name in the title - this goes beyond ad hominem and verges on defamation, stalking, and what have you; he also engages in edit wars and frequently leaves slanderous and unfounded notes on numerous Talk pages of Wikipedia Users merely for the sake of stirring opinion against another user as he has done on Philosophy and elsewhere (documented by numerous other users here Requests for comment/RK before I joined). He has made, and continues to make this site a very unpleasant experience, distorting issues by engaging in hysterical attacks and utterly pointless edit wars which other users are then drawn into defending themselves against, an exhausting, wasteful and time consuming process, as can be seen from the pages he is involved in (Special:Contributions/RK), most recently Islamophobia. -- Simonides 23:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I support this arbitration request. Zero may have been thinking of RK. Martin 18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Can I urge that this user is banned immediately? Has has deleted carefully worded material on Philosophy five times in the past day, and I believe he is about to do it again. The material was previously under discussion, a discussion he has refused to engage in at any time; his only contributions to the Talk page have been libel, and his past record of such activity is so long I can't figure out why he is still being tolerated here. -- Simonides 21:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure if it's my place to comment here, but I must strongly agree with Zero's and Simonides' complaints. I am currently involved in a dispute with RK myself, and I find his near constant use of abusive language, ad hominem statements, and deletions of material he disapproves of from Talk: pages make it extremely difficult to work on any Wikipedia articles in which he disagrees with you. Jayjg 18:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Without prejudicing the arbitration committee on a particular action to be taken in this case, I would like to note for the record that I have been highly offended at being called anti-Semitic, at having my view mis-represented, and most of all, having my family dragged into the discussion (see /Evidence page), even for a hypothetical. There is absolutely no reason that that should ever happen on Wikipedia. DanKeshet 18:56, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Statement by affected party
I just found out today that there was a formal arbitration case against me. It is improper to do this without me being part of it. RK

Be aware that Simonides was himself nearly banned for his non-stop damage of several Wikipedia articles? He launched into abusive polemics against nearly everyone on the Philosophy and Anti-Semitism articles. We must note that many people are upset with the way that Simonides's kept hurling ad homenim attacks at so many people, so many times. Since I was one of the many people who did not allow him to unilaterally rewrite all of our articles to match his own peculiar POV, he tried to ban me. Just check out the archives of these pages, especially the anti-Semitism page, You will find that I have not been harassing him, or anyone. The reverse is true, and he is just trying to ban me to get his POV in. RK

As for Zero, we rarely have any conflict. He does have anger towards me, and I suspect that he is a sockpuppet for another user. I requested that in the one area we have a significant difference, we mediate (the Israel Shahak article.) As for all the other articles that we could have had disagreements on (relating to the Arab-Israeli wars), I removed nearly all of those articles from my Watchlist. That's right, instead of arguing with Zero and others, for many months now I have totally let them have their own way on over a dozen articles. Compare this to the behaviour of other Wikipedians with arbitration cases; I don't know of a single user like myself who has been so generous in just totally removing themselves from a large number of contentious articles. RK

It seems odd to me that so few are willing to actively participate in mediation, but wish to push charges against me. And have they dropped any articles from their watchlist? Nope. I can't see how I am the bad guy here. RK 20:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * RK - an ad-hominem defense is no defense at all. How do you respond to the allegations made on the evidence page? (for the record, that page contains an entire section on "Ad hominem/Poisoning the Well") Also, more specifically, it says that Jimbo warned you earlier about being abusive - a warning which (to me) it appears that you have ignored. How do you defend this? →Raul654 21:00, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Huh? These people have along hisotry of making ad homenim attacks against me. That is my point. Also, what they present as evidence contains no violation of Wikipedia policy. Rather, what you see there are snippets taken out of context, in which I and other people have been complaining about the way that other people were violating Wikipedia policy. Are you seriously suggesting that you are refusing to read any of these articles and discussions, and that you are relying on sentence fragments taken totally out of context? That is unreasonable, and in fact shocking. Look, the fact that you refuse to look at Simonides long-list of hatespeech, and use his totally out-of-context rebuttal snippets as some kind of "evidence" against me scares the hell out of me. If that is what you are going to continue to do, then I will be forced to see up a request for arbitration against you, Zero and Simonides. I really don't have time for your attacks against me and your dsilly games of using out-of-context sentence fragments, but if you persist in this I do not see any other option. Please, Raul, for the good of Wikipedia stop this nonsense.  (BTW, if you think that Jimbo wants me banned, you are really in a world of your own.) RK 21:15, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you misunderstand how arbitration works. The people making this complaint are expected to explain the reasons for their allegations and provide evidence to support it (others may also offer evidence as well). You, on the other hand, are expected respond to these allegations by offering reasoning and evidence of your own to defend your actions. Ad-hominem claims about the people making the complaint (or the arbitrators themselves) generally do not constitute a defense - particularly in light of the fact that you-being-abusive is one of the chief grievances in the case; further, because of the sheer number of people who have commented on the evidence page and the RFC. The arbitration committee's job is to weigh the evidence presented and render a verdict (although we may consider evidence that neither party presents). However, it is NOT our job to gather evidence. If you fail to offer a proper defense, it can only hurt you.
 * Furthermore, I strongly suggest that you take this matter seriously, because Jimbo has given the arbitration committee all the powers that he used to have in governing the banning of users. And while he still reserves the right to overrule the arbcom, he has said he does not intend to use it. →Raul654 21:43, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

So after reading Raul's tirade against me, I was left with no choice. I now have to institute a RFA against him, Simonides and Zero, for their harassment and dishonesty, and their attempt to ban me for no good reason. RK 01:00, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

Arbitrator's opinions on hearing this matter

 * 1) Recuse Fred Bauder 14:14, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Accept. RK is indeed remarkably rude and a frequent violator of the no personal attacks policy. We have arbitrated other charges of rudeness and name-calling; we should hear this one. --the Epopt 14:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Accept. James F. (talk) 23:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Recuse. RK and myself have history. Martin 18:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Accept with no comment yet on the merits of the case.  RK-related stuff comes up on the mailing list and talk pages often enough that we should consider it. --Delirium 23:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) Accept. Gutza 15:02, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) Accept -- I'm hoping we can figure out a way to mediate this. The Cunctator 14:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Principles
1) Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. (See No personal attacks.)
 * Passed with four ayes and one abstention, 8th October 2004

2) All contributions should be written from the NPOV. (See NPOV.)
 * Passed with four ayes and one nay, no abstentions, 8th October 2004

3) Wikipedia is not a vehicle for political advocacy or propaganda, see What Wikipedia is not which states that Wikipedia articles are not to used for "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind".
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 8th October 2004

4) Users are expected to work with other Wikipedians in a mature fashion. (See Civility.)
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 8th October 2004

5) Legal threats are anti-social, and may be grounds for banning. (See No legal threats.)
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 8th October 2004

Findings of fact
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.
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

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"
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

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.
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

4) Some of RK's work outside of the field of Judaism, most notably in genetics, has been of a high quality.
 * Passed with four ayes and no abstentions, 27th September 2004

Remedies
1) RK is banned from editing the Wikipedia for a period of four months.
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 15th October 2004

2) 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.)
 * Passed with four ayes and one nay, no abstentions, 14th October 2004

3) RK is encouraged to return after the end of his ban to contribute to areas other than Judaism.
 * Passed with four ayes and one abstention, 14th October 2004

Enforcement
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.
 * Passed with five ayes and no abstentions, 14th October 2004

Outcome
The four months time is over, and RK was not unblocked. He asked to do so. While the decision was taken on the 14th, he was notified on the 15th, so it is not entirely clear whether the end of the ban is the 13th or 14th. I think it should reasonably be the 13th. Accordingly, I unblocked him today and left a message on his talk page. SweetLittleFluffyThing 15:50, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK


text:
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 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 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 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 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 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"

 * 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:

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:
 * 1) →Raul654 16:32, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) the Epopt 16:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) The Cunctator 17:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) 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 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:


text:
Talk:Fox Mulder

baby William
The article says, "Mulder is the father https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AwrJ6wrKIzdeVH4AWsOJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZ29xY3ZzBHNlYwNzZWFyY2gEc2xrA2J1dHRvbg--;_ylc=X1MDOTYwNjI4NTcEX3IDMgRhY3RuA2NsawRjc3JjcHZpZANmeFJ6cGpFd0xqS01VVFZoWGpjalBBN1dPRFV1T1FBQUFBRGQ0dnZ3BGZyA3lmcC10BGZyMgNzYS1ncARncHJpZANGZ0wyQl9sWFNJeURLbTQ2YmouVldBBG5fc3VnZwMwBG9yaWdpbgNpbWFnZXMuc2VhcmNoLnlhaG9vLmNvbQRwb3MDMARwcXN0cgMEcHFzdHJsAwRxc3RybAMyNARxdWVyeQNhbGllbiUyMGV2b2x1dGlvbiUyMGZpbG0EdF9zdG1wAzE1ODA2NzIzMjM-?p=alien+evolution+film&fr=yfp-t&fr2=sb-top-images.search&ei=UTF-8&n=60&x=wrt#id=65&iurl=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fs3.timetoast.com%2Fpublic%2Fuploads%2Fphotos%2F1991563%2FALIEN1.jpg%3F1473868242&action=click (possibly by in vitro fertilisation) of Scully's son William." Can someone cite a reference to the show to support this claim? --Memenen 9 July 2005 11:07 (UTC)

 * This may be referring to the flashbacks presented in the season 8 episode Per Manum, which introduces Zeus Genetics and Scullys doctor. She was attempting to undergo some sort of fertility treatment in the time frame of those flashbacks (which would have been around season 5) but it also seemed to suggest her efforts were a failure.

Overlaping in the article --Wikinewsblackcat 16:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A recurring theme in the eighth season of "The X-Files" is Scully's uncertainty regarding the identify of her baby's father. (Her greatest fear is that he will be an alien-human hybrid.) In "Per Manum" we learn that she asked Mulder to be her sperm donor. After hesitating, he agreed, saying "I wouldn't want this to come between us", but the result was negative. Enthusiasts of the Mulder-Scully romance (called "shippers" in fan circles)often use the last line of that episode as a springboard for their favorite fantasy: As the agents embrace, Mulder says, "Never give up on a miracle." Scully worries all through her pregnancy that her baby will be normal and 100% human. When William comes out with ten fingers and toes in the season finale, he seems perfect. Scully voices her doubts to Mulder only after the boy is born. Mulder says to Scully as he holds William, "The truth we both know," sealing it with a very tender, unpartnerlike kiss on Scully's lips. Mulder status as William's father is inferred by the diologue and emphasized by the body language of the actors. What's never made clear is whether the pair had consummated their physical relationship to achieve Scully's pregnancy or whether the original test issued a false negative. Mulder never married and Scully's baby was implanetd by alien's in the third season Mulder never dated Scully I don't know how that got to be but i'm a big supporter of the X-files and i've like seen almost every episode and not once did it mention Mulder being the father of Scull'y baby.

14.07.09 "I don't know how that got to be but i'm a big supporter of the X-files and i've like seen almost every episode and not once did it mention Mulder being the father of Scull'y baby"

Can't have watched very carefully can you? William being Mulder's son is frequently referenced to in the final episode. Just off the top of my head:

Guard: "What are you thinking about?" Mulder: "My son. His mother."

Scully: "Our son, Mulder ...I gave him up. Our son. I was so afraid you could never forgive me."

Not to mention the meaningful looks that Mulder and Scully give each other when the officiator at the hearing asks, "Agent Scully, isn't it true that you and Mulder were lovers, and you got pregnant and had his love child?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.130 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In the new series they also show that William calls Mulder "dad" and it's pretty sure for everyone that he is the father after season 8 or even earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.143.73.74 (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Education
It is not possible to graduate 'summa cum laude' from Oxford University, as British universities in general, and Oxford in particular, do not assign grades in this manner. Did he perhaps graduate with a 'First Class Degree'?

 * Correct me if I'm wrong (I often am!), but don't the Oxbridge universities award 'double firsts', as well? If there's specific reference to Mulder being 'top of his class' (I'll keep an ear out in re-watching the episodes in case it does), then it'd imply he achieved one of these, wouldn't it? GRAPPLE   X  19:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A 'double first' isn't technically a degree class, it just means you were awarded first class honours in both your second and third year exams (the years in which you're tested) - so you received 2 firsts, rather than something higher than a first.

big cleanup edits
I'm doing some major cleanup on this page - taking out unnecessary info, organizing it better, referencing things that should be referenced. I'm not finished (currently have only done "Personality" and "Trivia" sections), but let me know if you disagree with any of my cuts. I just think in general this (and most of the other X-Files character pages) have veered from "useful encyclopedia article" - something helpful to both newcomers and fans - to "dumping page for arcane and oblique facts". Not to mention a lot of it was incorrect or misleading.

I also plan to make more consistent headings - a "Family and Relationships" section that will include parts of the current "Family and early life" section, as well as summaries of his relationships with friends and women - which were scattered all around in other places.

--Frey 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

edits done!
The edits are done, for the most part. Any comments or criticism, please speak up!

Frey 06:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I just watched an episode today "Travellers" Season 5 and its set in 1990 and shows Fox wearing a wedding ring - do you have any background on him being married ?

Edit to Remove active personal phone number. --68.46.185.58 20:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote 22 is pretty outdated because there are episode in which mulder sleeps in his bed (e.g. that episode where he experiences the same day over and over again (bank robbery). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.44.196.146 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I Mulder?
Strangely, I was born on October 18, 1961, am 170 pounds and about 6 feet tall, and graduated from Martha's Vineyard Regional High School (where all Chilmark children attended high school).

I graduated in the top ten percent of my class (only 125 kids in the class of 1979), and I don't remember seeing him. Maybe I'm Mulder... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Actiscenei (talk • contribs) 16:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Nope because Mulder was born on October 13, 1961. Marikology 19:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the unofficial "FBI advisers" that the character is based on has a website (I got this information from a source that will remain unnamed) Weird Story.orgOddly enough His birthday is 13,October 1961. As the site develops it may be interesting to see the correlations between the show and the content of his site.Myraedison 00:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

...loss of virginity?
From the trivia: "Mulder lost his virginity at the age of 29." Anyone have a source of that? While I'm not the biggest X-Phile, and I haven't really seen that many episodes, I've never seen it mentioned anywhere else and it does sound slightly like vandalism. 13:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Considering all the porn he has, I'd suspect he's still a virgin, even when he donated his semen to Scully.--cw1925 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the episode it's in, but there's an early series episode where a guy can start fires with his mind, and Mulder & Scully are joined by an English woman that knew Mulder at Oxford. There's one bit where she reminds him of 'what they did on top of Arthur COnan Doyle's grave' and the episode implies they used to have sex. 62.136.5.62 23:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * the episode you're talking about is "Fire" and there is no dialogue that indicates Mulder lost his virginity at that time. The character simply references a "certain youthful indiscretion." Marikology 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Mulder have Sex with Kristin in "3"? vanbauseneick 11:39, 30 March 2008 (CET)

Other Family Members
Just wanted to mention that just because Mulder mentioned his uncle ("Humbug"), albeit very loosely, this does not warrant an entire article.--cw1925 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Married
Mulder wears a wedding ring in the episode "Travelers", could this mean he was married? Maybe the writers were going to elaborate on it in later episodes but just decided not to. I don;t know if this is already mentioned somehwere in another episode, if so, reply :)
 * The only reason Mulder is wearing the ring is because David Duchvony had recently gotten married and purposfully didn't take it off, presumably just to see what people would say. However, the show never elaborated on to whom Mulder was married; most fans assume it was Diana Fowley.
 * kk cheers

Sister disappered in Chilmakr, MA or Lake Okoboji, IA?
The article said Chilmark, but many times the series says Okoboji. I changed it to the latter but would like to know what others who are better informed believe. Interlingua 20:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I just watched the episode "Conduit," which takes place in part at Lake Okoboji, and do not recall any reference to Samantha Mulder's abduction having taken place there. I searched all 9 season's transcripts online for references to the lake and found only two episodes, "Conduit" and "E.B.E," that make reference to it and in neither case is it stated that Samantha was abducted there. Owlieo (talk) 03:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Paper Hearts definitively states where she was abducted, and although it escapes me exactly where, it was definitely not Lake Okoboji - Mulder brings a man who claims to have abducted Samantha to a house in Martha's Vineyard, where he explains how it was done. Mulder then reveals that this was a different house to the one the abduction occured in, which would imply the two are similar enough for the trick to work. I can rewatch the episode for specifics, but on that alone I'd imagine it's safe to say it was somewhere in the Martha's Vineyard region. GRAPPLE   X  19:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A source that can be used Truth Is Out There: The Official Guide to the X Files
There is a book called  Truth Is Out There: The Official Guide to the X Files by Brian Lowry. If you need more X-Files information (especially about development of episodes), get the book and cite it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Why Carter called him 'Fox'
Years ago I read somewhere (I can't remember where) that the first namens of siblings Mulder add up to Samantha Fox - that was supposed to be the reason for Carter calling Mulder 'Fox'. vanbauseneick 11:44, 30 March 2008 (CET)

No, he said in an interview that he went to school with a kid named Fox and thought it was a really cool name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.165.8 (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
How about mentioning his statement about "Plan Nine from Outer Space" as being so off-logic that it shuts down the logic center of his brain and allows him to make intuitive leaps of reasoning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.75.151 (talk) 03:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Unprofessional Justification for Interpreting Mulder's Dreams as False
Though this might be explained that it was only a dream and we all know how things in dreams are warped.

This is the quote from the page. It is located in Mulder's biography under Early Life. If this is acceptable, then I am sorry for posting this 'complaint.' Though I, in an amateur attempt at quality assurance, would submit the arguement that this should be edited; though I will not comment on how this should be done.

Death?
What about including some of the details of his death? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.181.54 (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion?
I just watched the episode "Conduit" and the scene at the end where Mulder is in the Church looks like a Catholic Church to me, though the article states that the character is Christian, not Catholic. Is there any evidence other than this episode for that characterization?76.228.227.176 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also evidence, most notably in "Drive", that he's Jewish, so it's really up in the air.--Gen. Quon (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

 * There is an episode that deals specifically with Jewish mythology in which Mulder is highly sympathetic but in which it seems ridiculous that he would not mention that he was Jewish, if he actually was. The episode where the Neo-Nazi comments that he "looks like one" (or something to that effect) was deliberately included by the actor, who is from a Jewish background. Mulder seems to be, by default, from a protestant background, albeit (certainly at the beginning of the series) an atheist himself. Just look at the scenes in his parents' house, no evidence anywhere of the trappings of Catholicism to suggest otherwise and certainly no evidence that his parents are Jewish either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1B8:10:14:0:0:0:FEED (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

All Catholics are Christian -_-

Regarding Duchovny's "I'm the conduit..." quote in the Reception section
The article informs us that he says this while "talking about his success portraying Fox Mulder." However, if you look at the BBC article that has been referenced as the source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1337569.stm) as well as this other piece here (http://www.beyondthesea.it/news.asp?id=301), it appears that he's talking about his roles in general or perhaps more specifically about his character in Red Shoe Diaries. TathD (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxford college
The fact that Mulder studied at Oxford comes up now and again, and there is that one terrible episode ("fire" I think) where somebody he knew at university shows up. But is it ever mentioned which particular college Mulder studied at? Check out some other famous Oxford alumni (or talk to anyone who went to Oxford) and you'll see that this is quite an important detail. Then again, another thing that the episode "fire" shows is the extremely poor level of research done into all things British including, bizarrely, the accents!

Smoking
I'm not sure when Mulder quit smoking -- sometime after the period of the flashbacks in the baseball episode and before the pilot -- but the subject comes up, most notably in "Brand X", if I remember correctly. Anyone here know more about his habit than what I've mentioned?

Thematically, there's a case to be made for Mulder's quitting being something that separates him from his biological father, Smoking Man; and the attendant "smokers are villains" trope ... but there's no way the writers had that in mind. More a post-structural assessment, which would be independent research unless someone can find an academic paper on the topic. That's just an aside, though.

Also, I always thought Mulder chewed sunflower seeds to deal with the cravings. That quote from Duchovny in the article mentions the seeds being related to an oral fixation, but not specifically related to quitting smoking.

Thoughts? Anyone want to start a dialogue about this? I'm feeling like I should watch the series again anyway, and I'll take notes on anything related to Mulder and smoking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice ass samson (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Smoking Man deceased?
Is he really?

Now that he's returning for the new mini-series.

 * Well, we had "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man" and "The Unnatural" -- both are episodes that took place mostly in the show's "past," establishing a precedent for exploring the history of the characters outside the show's otherwise very traditional linear timeline. Mulder's recollections of Samantha's abduction and the "Run, Lola, Run" episode with the bank robbery are further examples of the show's ability to step outside -- or behind -- a straight vanilla narrative.

 * So I assume William B. Davis will be appearing in flashbacks. No way he could have survived that explosion in the finale. But that's just my assumption. And assumptions are all we have until the new series airs.

 * Your talk page entry here isn't very helpful, what with it being speculation, but I love the show so much that I can't get very mad, and I also can't help hoping that Smoking Man gets a significant arc in the mini-series.

 * EmDoubleEweEl (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Fox Mulder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081015191121/http://www.sagawards.org/3_award_nom to http://www.sagawards.org/3_award_nom
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907174645/http://www.sagawards.org/4_award_nom to http://www.sagawards.org/4_award_nom
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080907174109/http://www.sagawards.org/5_award_nom to http://www.sagawards.org/5_award_nom

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fox Mulder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sagawards.org/6_award_nom
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412040830/http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards1997.shtml to http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards1997.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201175654/http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards1998.shtml to http://www.pressacademy.com/satawards/awards1998.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fox Mulder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715042428/http://www.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25657 to http://www1.goldenglobes.org/browse/film/25657

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fox Mulder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201151552/http://x-files.host.sk/mulder.php to http://x-files.host.sk/mulder.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090819153630/http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/04/28/chriscarter/print.html to http://archive.salon.com/people/feature/2000/04/28/chriscarter/print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Absences
Patience Roadrunners Invocation Redrum Via Negativa Surekill Salvage Badlaa Medusa Nothing Important Happened Today I and II Dæmonicus 4-D Lord of the Flies John Doe Hellbound Provenance Providence Audrey Pauley Underneath Improbable Scary Monsters Release Sunshine Days Goojrr (talk) 08:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fox Mulder


text: Category:Cajun

title: Category:Cajun


text:
User:Kenny sh/Color dot

*

title: User:Kenny sh/Color dot


text:
User:Hes Nikke

Hi, i'm Nate, and I'm just getting the hang of things here on WP... i'll probably put in a more complete user page eventually..

in the mean time, you can look at my website (i don't like calling it a blog, because it isn't very blog like - it runs on a preparatory system driven by an ikonboard backend, not to mention it has other non-blog features like some of my past projects) at ForgottenNewbies.com

title: User:Hes Nikke