Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/RK 2/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently RK is very biased against many people and will resort to any means including misusing wikipedia to achieve what he wants. His recent biased POV edits to chabad have proven this.--203.84.85.137 07:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't even know who RK is and suddenly out of the blue I get this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Halakhic-Jews-Only&diff=11670369&oldid=11670306 in response to one posting on Netzarim (I admit was a bit harsh but not factually inaccurate) and two postings about the origins of Hasidism which I thought were very polite. I assume RK's reaction was to my comments about Nazarenes' misuse/abuse of the term netzarim.

Dear RK, I am sorry you feel most wikipaedian contributors consider themselves netzarim, but this really is a misuse of the term. Only halakhically Jewish descendants of David HaMelech can be called netzarim and everyone else using that term is creating a fantasy. "Nazarenes" really do have no right to use it. It is exactly the same as groups of people begining to call themselves the royalty of Britain without having any blood descent from that royal family. Anyone who did this would simply be ignored as crazy. In Britain I think it might even be a crime. If you are indeed descended from David HaMelech, then you have my respect. I have not and will not make any personal attacks on anyone. It is not my intention to do so. My username simply reflects my POV. I can not lie and say I have no POV. But I can make it clear what my POV is without any discussion. A Jew is only a Jew as defined by Halakhah. This had been the traditional standpoint of Judaism for thousands of years and is still held by millions of Jews all over the world today. No-one should try to sweep this POV under the carpet. To be sure there are many more POVs than this one. But from my perspective there is no difference between a Messianic Jew and Conservative Jew or anything in between. I am not anti science nor anti history nor anti archaeology. I am very pro NPOV. But I think it is wrong to suppose some holistic political compromise is NPOV when in fact it is simply another POV. True Neutrality can only come through honest reportage of the plethora of POVs surrounding a subject. The number 1 will always mean one, this is a fact, there may be many POVs surrounding this fact. If the POVs are too numerous perhaps it is best to omit them in favour of the facts. The fact is if it is not Halakhic Judaism it is anti-Halakhic Judaism and can never be considered the same. It is a lie to pretend there is one united view on this. There are many POVs but the fact will always remain the same.Halakhic-Jews-Only 22:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Before this is closed

It's not clear from the votes what length the personal attack parole will ultimately be. --Michael Snow 19:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With the current majority of 5, this isn't clear - I've asked the other arbitrators to express a preference to sort this out -- sannse (talk) 22:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I switched from 6 to 12 - David Gerard 22:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)