• RK/notes - from Wikipedia:Community case RK
  • RK/notes 2 - from Wikipedia talk:Community case RK

Latest eventsEdit

CJ Reconciliation pageEdit

  • w:Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation -blanked backLink. CL:"(WARNING. Anti-Semitic racists have vandalized this page and protected it.)" TC:"This is no joke. I will not allow Stevertigo and other anti-Semitic racists to vandalize this page. RK 16:17, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)"
  • w:Talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation -blanked again backLink. No CL. TC:"Stop pushing anti-Semitic slander and anti-Catholic slander. That is a violation of Wikipedia communal norms. Continued harassment will be met with continued blanking. If you cannot control your hatred of Jews and Catholics, go elsewhere. This is no joke." -- unsigned revision by RK at 16:42, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
RK just added this to the above page:
Didn't anyone notice the red flag terms? Only Christian Identity adherents and members of he Ku Klux Klan use the term "racialist? In any case, Stevertigo is slandering the entire Jewish community; Jews are not slandering Chrisitans as "racists", let alone as "racialists". He is fabricating positions, and then attacking Jews for these positions which only exist in his mind. That is called Jew-baiting, and it is anti-Semitic by definition. RK 20:51, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Yet according to the page history, RK added the text in -- where the word "racialist" is used {10:38, 1 Oct 2003 . . RK (Discussion of racist rant against Jews.)} whilst describing what he claims Stevertigo has said. I don't know where RK gets this from, but now it just looks like RK is flat-out lying and attempting to "plant evidence" -- as silly as that seems when anyone can go back and look at the history! -- Bcorr 21:42, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Threatening NetEsq with a banEdit

On 24 Aug, RK wrote in an edit summary to Wikipedia:Community case RK, on two occasions: "Netesq is now added to list of those risking a ban".


Netesq restored Wikipedia:Community case RK on four occasions, following attempts by RK to blank it. Those occasions are:

  • 01:02, 24 Aug 2003 . . RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. Netesq is now added to list of those risking a ban.)
  • 01:00, 24 Aug 2003 . . Netesq (RV to last edit by Jiang)
  • 00:56, 24 Aug 2003 . . RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. Netesq is now added to list of those risking a ban.)
  • 00:55, 24 Aug 2003 . . Netesq (Rv to last edit by Jiang)

(skipping intervening edits)

  • 00:37, 24 Aug 2003 . . Netesq (Reverting RK's page blanking)
  • 00:35, 24 Aug 2003 . . RK (Reverting harassment. Sysop WikiEn list has been notified of this abuse.)
  • 00:29, 24 Aug 2003 . . Netesq (Reverting RK's page blanking)
  • 00:26, 24 Aug 2003 . . RK (Removing sick and hateful comments by some rather sick, disturbed people. Sysops, I am requesting an official vandalism alert.)
  • 00:24, 24 Aug 2003 . . Netesq

The 00:24 edit consisted of adding the following comment:

I echo these concerns. At the same time, RK is under enough scrutiny by enough people to thwart his negligent, reckless, and/or devious editing tactics. Perhaps a protected page should be set up for sysops to catalog RK's more questionable edits. Meanwhile, rank and file Wikipedians should be given wide latitude to revert RK's edits as they see fit. Eventually, RK will get the message that he is not fooling anyone, or he will simply go away. --

There was additionally another edit by NetEsq at 20:45, 23 Aug 2003, which consisted of adding the following comment:

What Martin said. As the diversity and number of complaints about RK's behavior increases, it is only a matter of time before he takes note of this fact and figures out how to peacefully co-exist with other Wikipedians. -- NetEsq 20:45, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Prior to this point, NetEsq was editing the creationism and creationism (theology) articles, in an entirely blameless fashion.


These references are sadly broken as en:Wikipedia:Community_case_RK has been deleted. This is not my fault. --Update!-- at Martin's Request, I have restored this page. I deleted it to "clean the trail", as it were. Apologies for the disturbance. -Stevertigo 00:39, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin's questionEdit

A question to RK - do you still feel that NetEsq should be banned?

RK's response to this incidentEdit


This is confusing. Where can I view the page history of these disputed edits, so I can examine the full context. These edits didn't take place on creationism articles, right, but on a completely inappropriate page ('Community case', which is nonsense of course) set up specifically to criticize RK? Or did they take place on the creationism article? Can you please add a link so we can check the evidence for ourselves? Jimbo Wales 02:59, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I had added links for you to view the page history, so you could examine the full context and check the evidence for yourself. Unfortunately, the relevant page has since been deleted, which broke the links I provided. I am sorry that you find this confusing.
You are correct that the edits in question, where RK called for NetEsq to be banned, took place on Wikipedia:Community_case_RK. I should note that NetEsq did not set up this page. -MyRedDice

Yes, these edits are from en:Wikipedia:Community case RK. The only link to them now is <http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special%3AUndelete&target=Wikipedia:Community_case_RK>. Make sure that you're logged in on en: to view this, and scroll down a bit to the text "Netesq". Unfortunately you can no longer get an automatic diff, but this will verify that the above edit summaries are from that page. Alternatively, you could just believe me as to their source. ^_^

It's interesting that you [Jimmy] consider the page en:Wikipedia:Community case RK to be "completely inappropriate". Remember that it was intended as a milder replacement for en:User_talk:RK/ban, so presumably that must have been completely inappropriate as well. This is stronger language than you've ever used for /ban pages when discussing them on wikiEN-L. I agree with you that /ban pages have, at the very least, grown out of control.

-- Toby Bartels 08:03, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)