RK/notes

This page was formerly on Wikipedia:Community case RK

User talk:RK/ban Archive

(page made by User:RK)

The anthere/ban incident

The following two comments were moved from user talk:Anthere/ban by User:EntmootsOfTrolls, creating this page, back when it was user talk:RK/ban. They should not be read as Steverapaport and JTdirl advocating a ban of RK.

I don't see anyone harassing anyone except this RK character. Anthere responded specifically and verifiably to each baseless accusation. RK responds by ignoring all her well-reasoned replies, and accusing her of harassment??!! RK you are looking worse every minute. Love and Peace, User:Steverapaport 18:40 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't know what is going on here and no nothing about the topic. But from what I have read RK seems to be one in the wrong in his treatment of Anthere. ...I have seen absolutely nothing to justify her being called a troll and not one item to justify the creation of a 'let's ban' page. RK, if you have evidence not rhetoric please show it. In the meantime please show Anthere the respect she so obviously deserves as a genuine wikipedian. FearÉIREANN 19:04 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I didn't create the Anthere/ban page. For whatever reason, she created it herself. Many people have created their own page on that topic. RK

Just for the record, it was actually created by Koyaanis Qatsi, after anthere created a "red link" to it on user:anthere. This was presumably in response to the following edit comment by RK:

02:04 29 Jun 2003 Gaia (Sigh. I give. This is officially a VANDALISM alert. Anthere keeps shoving science facts into this article on a Greek goddess. Please ban her.)

Soon after its creation, Anthere added to the page and mentioned it in this mailing list post. RK subsequently requested that Anthere be banned on two other occasions. I believe that RK has now retracted this request. Martin 23:52 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I was the first person RK chose to whine for a ban about, rather than actually encountering the issue that gave rise to our conflict, as he does. Personally I feel that if someone whines to authority rather than engaging in dialogue, they should be banned as a matter of course, without a discussion. EofT

comment by EntmootOfTroll removed by RK in this edit

Censorship? This is an attempt to characterize what I said as "anti-Semitic", which is a typical RK lie. See User:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism for my actual attitude to RK. Personally I think he raises scientism to a religion, lies easily and poorly, and takes a discipline point of view rather than a neutral point of view. Thus a better role for him in this project is working on science textbooks, not articles.

Um, I don't think people who make anti-Semitic attacks about me should be considered impartial parties on whether or not I should be banned. Let us be clear that EntmootOfTroll's and GrahamN's repeated Jew-baiting are things I happen to object to, and this is actually why they are trying to ban me. Just thought this context might be of use. RK 02:19 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Although I vehemently disagree with some of RK's opinions, and although his variety of closed-minded self-righteous bluster can be a real pain in the arse, and although he's deliberately and systematically inserted bias into a whole swathe of articles, and although he's just slandered me again as an anti-semite and a "Jew-baiter" and deleted my remarks on this page, nevertheless I still strongly oppose a ban on RK. GrahamN 04:12 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't advocate it either. I advocate "inviting him over" to textbooks and out of the encyclopedia. EofT

I don't like RK's way of insulting other editors, and I agree that RK can occasionally drive somebody to despair, but there should be other ways than just calling for a ban. Is it a custom now to create a ban page for every user you have a problem with? I oppose a ban as well, and I am really annoyed about pages like User talk:Anthere/ban or User talk:RK/ban. -- Cordyph 19:15 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since what appears to happen is a sort of shunning, and actual "ban" is impossible given current non-biometric-ID policies, I suggest we rename those as "shun" pages. EofT

RK seems to be harsh and unwilling to accept that his POV is not more than just his POV, and his behaviour with Anthere was below minimal standards of civility - but IMO that doesn't justify a ban. Please let's remember that Wikipedia works because of mutual respect and little else. Kosebamse 19:36 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Please do not engage in ad homein attacks. If you truly were sincere, then you would stop insulting, and start helping. If you truly see a problem with a Wikipdia contributor's work on an article, then just step in and help out. That is the way we work here. But don't stand by silently for months, and then launch a personal attack. That is just childish, and makes your sincerity questionable. RK

RK, I have followed the entire Gaia affair on the mailing list and to some degree here on Wikipedia. I do not "see a problem with a Wikipdia contributor's work on an article" (to be honest, I don't have the faintest idea what exactly your quarrels were about). I do see a problem with the way that Wikipedians used the mailing list as a forum for shouting at each other, crying "vandal" and "ban" and annoying the piss out of everybody with their private differences. While I have a clear opinion about your behaviour there was no need to express it elsewhere. On this page here however, where banning is under discussion, I voiced my opinion to oppose a ban as inappropriate. I certainly do not wish to engage in ad hominem attacks, and I find it remarkable that it is you who reminds me not to do so. Respectfully, Kosebamse 06:09 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What concerns me is driving off real and uniquely-positioned contributors like User:Anthere in favour of garden-variety whiners and liars like User:RK. I'd favour a ban if it came to a choice between those two, and it was RK himself that initiated this, by calling for such bans. EofT

As far as I can see, User:RK hasn't created or edited the User talk:Anthere/ban page at all, although there are probably comments there by RK, copied from other places that e posted, after the page was possibly created as a joke, by a third party. Whether or not that's relevant, I have no idea, just thought I'd mention it here. As I haven't understood any of the relevant discussions, and don't currently plan to go back in time (edit history) to understand them, and not an expert on the subject of the discussions, I have no comments on the matter. (I do think not banning people is better on average, however. I don't have any information to compare this case with average, though.) كسيپ Cyp 19:47 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For the record, Anthere created the Anthere/ban page. As others have done, she created a page where those who felt that she needed to be banned could discuss the issue. --Dante Alighieri 02:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the facts. I am not engaged in a campaign to ban Anthere. But since when did facts matter to people filled with hate. :( RK 02:19 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

02:04 29 Jun 2003 Gaia (Sigh. I give. This is officially a VANDALISM alert. Anthere keeps shoving science facts into this article on a Greek goddess. Please ban her.)

This edit summary by you suggests otherwise. Do you retract it? Martin 16:00, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Banning RK ? No. I am an anti-ban supporter :-) User:Anthere

I agree, banning RK would be a mistake. --Dante Alighieri 02:40 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I also disagree with banning RK, though I do hope he will take note of some of the criticism on this page and behave differently in the future. Martin 23:52 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

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)

Having seen some of the things he's been up to lately, my opinion of RK has changed. I used to think that he was a highly excitable, slightly dim, unhealthily obsessive, but basically honest contributor. Now I see that he's become thoroughly devious and untrustworthy. I don't think a ban would do any good, though. It's better for Wikipedia that somebody like that continues to edit under their own name. GrahamN 21:34, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Supporting a ban:

172

Advocating a shun on the encyclopedia, and help to move over to textbooks:

EntmootsOfTrolls

Against a ban:

GrahamN (still)
Cordyph
Kosebamse
Cyp
Anthere
Dante Alighieri
RK
Vicki Rosenzweig Strongly oppose, and would add that EofT is welcome to move to the textbook site if he(?) wishes. Vicki Rosenzweig 17:46, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think this page has to be taken too seriously... I think it's safe just to ignore it... كسيپ Cyp 09:49 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

eh ! If there ever is a banning vote against me, I will put my vote in the "against" list. User:Anthere

I gave some constructive advice to RK, In response, I got a lot of incoherent, paranoid babble completely evading and misrepresenting everything I said. I don't think that he's in the proper mental state to work cooperatively with other users. It's time for him to be banned. See below; notice how he overlooks the links to page histories that disprove his comments. 172 17:12, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

172:Regardless of what you claim, here is the page history of Israel, which refutes your claim that you did not have a problem with JT's nation and state distinction. Your edit, which you described as "Wiki Sysops, be alerted: Jtdirl is refusing to follow consensus, and is unilaterally reverting everyone else's work," made these changes. Thus, the page history disproves your claim that JT's actions stemmed from a personal vendetta against you. I'm warning that you're squandering your credibility. First, the description of your edit was totally misleading. Jtdril did not remove anything, he added something valid and completely new. Second, you aren't able to produce a page on which Jtdril characterized Zionism as racism because you conjured that out of thin air. Third, the page history proves that you did "have a problem with the article having such a section," despite your claims above on this talk page. Please don't assume that I'm easily mislead since I haven't been following the history of this page for a long period of time. However, I'm willing to overlook these indiscretions if your drop your paranoia and begin following the NPOV guidelines on Israeli and Palestinian pages. 172 06:05, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK: I took a look at the same set of edits to the Israel article, and the set of edits told a very different story than your reading. You know full well what the real issues are, since I told people on this WikiEn list many times already; I was mostly writing about the stuff on Arab refugees and Jewish refugees. Many others, of course, were also disturbed by Jtdirl's incorrect and poorly written statements on other issues. (How you can twist the consensus of Wikipedia contributors into a tirade by me alone is unfathomable. Just like Jtdirl, you are still attributing the beliefs of the majority of Wikipedia contributors on this article to me alone, in order to ignore the good points being made by the consensus.) Sadly, you are still ignoring the actual statements I wrote on WikiEn, and are constructing a false belief system about what I "must" be thinking inside my head. How would you like it if people refused to believe anything at all that you wrote, but instead constructed false beliefs about you by reading one (and only one) edit, totally out of context? Wouldn't that be dishonest? RK 15:47, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK: 172, I am also disturbed by the way you went on and on about me inappropriately trying to push pro-Israel POV into the article. That is a lie that Jtdirl keeps pushing, and the Edit history does not bear his false claim out. Re-read the edits. I wasn't pushing any POV whatsoever; in fact, the problem was that I agreed we should follow standard Wikipedia NPOV policy, and thus merely asked that the article should contain links to our already created peer-reviewed NPOV articles on Jewish refugees and Arab refugees. And as you can see for yourself, everyone else agreed with me. It was not just I, but many others as well who made these edits go through. Unless you believe that everyone working on the article should leave WIkipedia, and only Jtdirl is NPOV, then you must retract your claim. Your criticisms simply bear no resemblance to the actual problem occuring. RK

He's at it again:

(History of the idea. (Why has all the historical context been left out?) There are entire books on the history of this subject, it is not just an excuse to trash Jews.)

Slogan 'Zionism is racism' has been more or less expanded into insensibility by him, and he is labelling various positions that are UN positions as if they were those of "enemies of Israel", "Arabs", etc., when many reasonable people, including many Jews, believe them, and some even oppose Zionism - Noam Chomsky for instance, and those Jews who call for a binational state like Canada or Belgium. He is inserting some redundant text that already exists in Zionism there too, and as usual, personally attacking and accusing of "anti-Semitism" all who disagree. EofT

Is it possible to shun him by not responding to him, moving all his talk to his home page, and revert his edits to all Jewish, Israel, Zionism and related conflict pages without comment? That would be short of a full shun or ban, and he might get the clue. EofT

Now he is deleting this page, and, censoring substantive comments from Talk:Slogan 'Zionism is racism' and attacking User:Graft also. I sadly must now advocate a full shun or ban or whatever we call it. He seems not to get clues, period. Aside from that, he has no sense of humour.EofT

RK, censoring other users' comments will not help your cause. Please note that I won't engage in any discussion about your permanent allegations of other users being antisemitic. It is your apparent attempt at censorship that must be discussed here. I do not advocate a ban (see my comment above which you tried to delete along with the rest of this page) but I would suggest that you make up your mind whether you wish to respect the rules and the spirit of this place, and if you don't wish to respect them you might wish to leave. Respectfully Kosebamse 09:15, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Please do not ban RK. He has proven to be a valuable resource and collaborator. Prevent his changes to specific pages topic and talk pages, if that's really necessary as an alternative to being shut out altogether; but do not ban him. Mkmcconn 10:22, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not wish to pronounce on this issue, but I will raise this point: my few dealings with RK have led me to wonder whether he sees anti-semitism where none exists. -- Tarquin 18:20, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't suppose EntmootsofTrools blatant slandering of most Jews as racists, his personal attacks on my Jewishness, his obsessions with Jews, and his arrogant questioning of whether I follow the rules of Leviticus count? If you somehow think that all this isn't anti-Semitism, then you live in a fantasy universe. I can only wonder if you have actually read any of the many Jew-related comments EntmootsofTrools (and certain anonymnous unsigned contributors) keeps making? RK 18:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You accuse a lot of people around here of being anti-Semites. Most of them know that I'm a Jew and have never given me a hard time about it. It's a matter of your persistence on a one-sided POV that people are questioning. 172 18:31, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Dear 17, can you read English? EntmootsofTrools publicly slanders of most Jews as racists, makes personal attacks on my Jewishness, has an obsessions with Jews, and questions whether I follow the rules of Leviticus count? If you somehow think that all this isn't anti-Semitism, then you live in a fantasy universe. Stop using your tired "I am Jew too!" defense to support a sick man who is writing hateful attacks on Jews, and is trying to ban me for writing a historical background on the anti-Zionism issue. For shame. RK 19:32, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps actually noticing you is an obsession, RK, but you gave me little choice, as your very first contact with me led you to immediately advocate a ban on the mailing list. You should not be surprised if I target every word you write, not that I do, but it's what you deserve. My issue with your sabotage of the article in question is that it was in the wrong place - your text was fine but redundant with Zionism - you seem to have this problem a lot, putting things where they serve your political purpose, not where they belong in an encyclopedia. As for the article I launched that makes you so agitated, well, I wrote it initially because you were accusing 172 of something that I understood to be racism, for repeating the Zionism is racism thing. I provided the article so that those targetted for your shameful verbal abuse and lies would have a neutral reference on the actual position taken by the UN on the issue, and so you would be unable to advocate banning anyone for having such a common poliical view. This will continue every time I notice you trying to ban someone for having a common political view, or, should you become a sysop, actually using the ban function. Anyone banned by User:RK is automatically my friend, even if they're a Nazi, until they show their spots in some other way. RK's opinion carries ZERO weight with me. Is that clear? I am allying with loathsome trolls only to prevent RK from further unbalancing the points of view here. It's a neutrality thing. EofT

I have to admit that I've never really worked with the user whom your accusing of being an anti-Semite at the moment. However, I have a tendency to be highly skeptical of your charges. You lost a great deal of credibility when you slandered Jtdirl as an anti-Semite. 172 19:39, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

could you read what I wrote? I said ***MY*** dealings with you. I have not ben following you around, you know! -- Tarquin 18:29, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

User talk:RK/ban Archive2

(page made by User:EntmootsOfTrolls

Another, new, reason to ban RK. He has dishonestly shoved into his "archive" much more recent comment than some of what he left below, including some that brings to light his actual behaviour and likely motives, and deliberately leaves this self-serving starting point. EofT

talk in between that archived, and that above

Could we please all just drop the talk of banning RK? All it does is turn the subject away from (A) how to make good articles and focuses it instead on (B) who's right and who's wrong.

I thought we all understood that the Wikipedia is not about determining right and wrong. The Wikipedia cannot take sides in any controversy.

The trouble is, and I think more of you know this than you let on (!), that it's fairly easy to get someone into a mode where they're so upset they can't see straight -- and then we can all spend days weeks even months going around in circles. I daresay this discussions run the risk of turning into a microcosm of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and I really don't want to see that here.

It also reminds me of that schoolyard game where some bullies corner a small boy and subject him to teasing and other small provocation. Then they make a point of protesting loudly whenever he strikes out at them: "See? He hit me! And for nothing... should be kept after class, etc."

Let's not gang up on Bob (er, RK) but rather find ways to work smoothly with him. If that means everyone but RK taking three days off from Wikipedia, so be it. RK's really a rather good chap, but many of you are just getting his dander up. You don't see me getting into tussles with him.

This is not to excuse or accuse anyone, but merely to lay down some guidelines that will help us all get through this difficult time. --Uncle Ed 20:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

But you're missing a vitally important point here. If people are too intimidated to freely speak up about issues because of a fear of being branded as an anti-Semite, then this will allow one side to dictate the discussion, push its agenda and ultimately hurt Wikipedia. It's called intellectual terrorism. 213.73.161.245 21:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ed, I totally agree that it would be best to step back and let things calm down. However, things are not likely to calm down as long as aggressive behaviour (such as deleting a discussion page with other users' comments or shouting "antisemite" at people with whom one disagrees) is tolerated. Therefore, at the same time that we step back, we should make clear that such actions are beyond the line. If the person who did these things returns to civilised behaviour, there is no reason why he should not regain the respect of other Wikipedians. Respectfully, Kosebamse 11:51, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

from Zionism is racism discussion

I'm tired of worrying about offending someone with the plain truth. I favour an immediate shun of anyone who suggests this article is itself anti-Semitic. As User:RK and others have been spinning this issue, it's a goo idea to have an absolutely neutral statement of the facts, with links to the original resolution background. The reference is not the best, it would be ideal to link to UN archives of the actual resolution. EofT

EoT is lying. This is not a personal issue, and I am not trying to push a new view that says that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic. Rather, the identification of anti-Zionism as a new form of anti-Semitism is very well established, and accepted as factual by all mainstream Jewish groups, by many Christian groups, by many Western historians, and by a small but growing number of Arab intellectuals. EoT is dishonestly trying to turn this into a personal issue to distract of from the fact that he repeatedly slanders most Jews as racists, and seems to have an unhealthy obsession with Jews. RK 21:36, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"as factual"? two abstractions cannot be identified as the same as each other factually, it's a definitive construct. Also, I cannot be anti-Semitic, since, if I was, I would have to say that *any* attention paid to Jews is unhealthy. I am not sure you are a Jew anyway, RK. How much of Leviticus do you follow? ;-) EofT

The above is a classic case of bald-faced anti-Semitism. Wiki Sysops, please ban this blatant antisemite. I am quite serious. I have had enough of his non-stop lies, slander and Jew-bashing hatespeech, and Wikipedia sysops had better take their duty seriously. Wikipedia's reputation will be further harmed if it keep encouraging such blatant Jew-taunting. RK 02:34, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

LOL. Well it is probably RK-baiting, that is so. I apologize for any Jew genuinely offended, but, I cannot in good faith apologize to RK, given he has already enraged a good many people himself - like User:Graft below. EofT

Text removed from this /ban page by RK

User:RK removed the following from Talk:Islamofascism for overt political reasons:

Hold on - there *is* such a moral equivalence, although most won't like it, at least between the Yemenis and the firefighters, if not the Saudis. Yemen is a very poor country. It consumes little. The average Yemeni probably does not, simply with his or her lifestyle, kill anyone by living it. The average American, however, probably kills a few dozen, mostly by consuming oil that is maintained by dictators long propped-up from Washington, and supporting secret attacks on people (like Hugo Chavez) who are trying to change circumstances in their countries for the better, boycotts on Cuba (without which it would likely have democratized long ago), supporting intellectual property law and force-backed debt that sucks billions out of poor nations, and keeps them from life-saving drugs, wasting their time with propaganda, resisting land reform, consuming products wholly destructive of the planet's life support capacity, and just general ignorance. Now, both the firefighter and the suicide bomber voluntarily chose to be where they were, and both see themselves as protecting life in their own way. The dead firefighter might be a dozen to three dozen dead people averted, depending on his lifestyle, minus whoever he saved or woulhave saved in his life. The dead Yemeni, taking his share, if 19 killed over 2000, is taking out a hundred more. He has killed this hundred plus but saved the ones they would otherwise have killed by being New Yorkers, Americans, bankers, lawyers, etc.. The numbers need to be clarified but that's an argument from overconsumption and imperialism. Just trying to be neutral. Yeah man, relax. You have no enemies here.

Since the article is about exactly this kind of debate, the talk was on-topic and relevant. This is one of several Talk files RK censors to suit his own political stance.

The text above was deleted by RK from this page and replaced by content in section "RK's response" below. Exact diff lost in move.

It wasn't posted in an article, for heaven's sake -- it just explained why I thought the WTC photo was inappropriate. Disagree, fine, but remove? There was no threat of violence or hate speech.

RK accidentally deleted my text. Problem resolved -- Tlotoxl 23:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You mean, he *claims* it was by accident. It was just as likely on purpose, and he reversed it when he was caught. That is common behaviour of his type. EofT

RK's response

Someone is complaining that I am censoring their text. Never happened. It appears that I accidentaly erased someone's recent comment, while removing violent death threats against Americans. For whatever reason, this person imagined that I was attempting to remove their text. I am sorry for the confusion, but please do not attack me for a minor accident. The more important thing is that we ban the anonymous users promoting violence and mass murder. RK

The text above replaced the text deleted in the section preceding it

There is no "we" at Wikipedia including User:RK, and if "we ban" anyone it should start with him. As for "promoting violence and mass murder", well, we would hardly get a balanced discussion of militarism, right-wing politics, Zionism, law or anything other than anarcho-pacifism if we banned all promotion of violence or war. So this could hardly be any kind of fair standard. Not that RK seeks one! EofT

I didn't find the comment particularly pleasant, equating life in the first world to murder in the third, but it stopped short of advocating violence against americans and well short of an actual death threat, I thought. -- Tlotoxl 23:40, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I too do not see it. It's unpleasant and slanted, but, a common observation of leftists. It's not my view - surely human beings are not just drains on other human beings. But User:RK does challenge that presumption, I admit. EofT

Much more significant, the invention of false "death threats" being "read in" to texts on difficult political matters is a common propaganda and intimidation technique, often used to invoke authority's dull hand on the merely offensive. With enough whining and vile begging for "protection", it seems, even a total invention can be given credence, and one political point of view censored.EofT

EofT alleges "provable lies"

Provable lies and unsubstantiated legal opinion and falsely labelled actions RK made in edit notes:

(diff) (hist) . . User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban RK; 12:31 . . RK (Talk) (VANDALISM ALERT> EntmootsOfTrolls is deliberately setting up circular links as a form of harassment. )
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:RK/ban; 12:26 . . RK (Talk) (AGAIN, I am removing hatespeech and harassment from EntmootsOfTrolls, and moving his many comments back to his own page.)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:RK; 12:03 . . RK (Talk) (Remvoing more unwanted harassment from EntmootsOfTrolls)/

Now, he repeatedly blanks this ban page, and calls for those who comment here to be banned. This is well beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour. If he can't stand open debate, let him leave.EofT

Now he has taken to moving the text to a subpage of mine, despite the fact that it contains substantial comment by several others. And lying again, as is his habit, in this case saying that I am "deliberately setting up circular links as a form of harassment." However, the truth is that I have redirected the page he invented back here where all /ban regarding himself belongs, and it is he that created the circular links in an attempt to censor or dissociate himself from talk that is clearly about him, not about me. Since all contents of any /ban page are "unwanted" by definition, his desires in this regard are irrelevant. And, since RK is neither a lawyer nor a person capable of recognizing any kind of truth, it seems, his labels "hatespeech" and "harassment" are to be taken as what they are: more self-serving lies made up so that the unwary may believe them, or at least not actively disbelieve them, and slowly wear away at my own reputation. If this works, of course, it says nothing good about Wikipedia. But someone must stand up to this so-called intellectual terrorism, and it appears he has already chosen me as a target, so, I am pleased to perform this service. Those of you who consider Wikipedia a community should also take note, and ask yourselves "what would happen if RK behaved this way in person"? And ask if he is driving off good contributors by picking political opponents like myself, calling for them to be banned, and then censoring it when they point out his frequent lies. Also I must consider his contributions to the encyclopedia itself suspect now, as he is shown no regard for the truth, and change my vote to "ban". I don't believe we can trust what he says in textbooks or dictionary, let alone a "neutral" encyclopedia. EofT 14:35, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Next, he made a false copy of the above, posted that to a subpage of mine (User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban_RK) which he invented, claiming it was accurate while deleting the most recent incident where he is clearly lying. While doing so, he posted the following comments also to the notes:

(diff) (hist) . . User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban RK; 15:49 . . RK (Talk) (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.)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:RK/ban; 15:48 . . RK (Talk) (Sysops, please ban EntmootsOfTrools. He is vandalizing Wikipedia on an hourly basis. This is no joke. )

These are as false as they were the first time. There was no circular link - each time the text was correctly restored. And, the correct place to call for a ban of myself is User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban, just as, the correct place to call for a ban of User:RK is here. So I must, regrettably, again do. EofT

New lies, as RK once again posted a false copy of this file pretending to move it:

(diff) (hist) . . User talk:RK; 16:22 . . RK (Talk) (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.)
(diff) (hist) . . User talk:RK/ban; 16:08 . . RK (Talk) (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.)
(diff) (hist) . . User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban RK; 16:02 . . RK (Talk) (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 )

RK is entitled to his opinions, but, he is now making threats, to "initiate further action", and inventing verbs like "raving", when a fair reading of the above is that RK is the one repeating himself, and unable to gather the presence of mind even to delete the trailing "I" off that last comment when he ran out of space. RK appears to be attempting to start a moral panic, and to practice psychiatry, slander (are edit notes speech?), libel (no they're writing), and all that. These tactics are sadly typical, as any review of his Talk: file "contributions" will prove. I note them here on his /ban page as policy requires. EofT

He has done it twice more, and an anonymous IP did it once too, which is likely him again. Ho hum. EofT

False statements recently posted to the mailing list by RK:

No matter what articles I write on (Marvel comics, Supreme Power, Norman Corwin, Cathechism, Scientific Classification, Zionism, Biology, Israel) he keeps on ranting about me, Zionism and racism. He does this on my own User page every few hours, which he keeps trying to turn into a one-man campaign to ban me. After weeks of his abuse, I can be silent about this no longer.

Facts: I have made no edit to any of (these pages). I supported the move of some text from Slogan: 'Zionism is racism' to Zionism, since it was about the whole history of anti-Zionism. I have made no edits nor talk comments on Marvel comics, Supreme Power, Norman Corwin, Cathechism, Scientific Classification, Biology or Israel. Nor have I touched User:RK, his "own User page". What I have done is repeatedly restore User_talk:RK/ban, this page, after RK has repeatedly blanked it. And I will keep doing so.

He also made other questionable statements but they aren't outright falsehoods.

The restoration that wasn't

(cur) (last) . . 18:30, 22 Aug 2003 . . RK (Temp restoration of this page, but will someone please move it to EntmootsOfTrolls User site? He still has not refrained from his one-man harassment campaign.)
(cur) (last) . . 18:09, 22 Aug 2003 . . RK (This is all about EntmootsOfTrools. This has nothing to do with me. Please return discussion to his home page.)

The first of these edits turned this page into "Redirect #User:EntmootsOfTrolls/Ban_RK". The second of these purported to be a restoration. However, there are key difference between the "restored" version, and the version before RK's edits: The Diff

This disturbs me, and I can see why someone might consider it a coverup. RK removed some useful headers of mine, and some cut and pastes from the page summary of his own edit summaries. I don't think this kind of undisclosed removal of content is acceptable on Wikipedia. Martin 19:57, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

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. --

Sick violent hatred

(following edits were blanks or replacements by redirects)

(cur) (last) . . 23:50, 23 Aug 2003 . . 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.)
(cur) (last) . . 16:59, 23 Aug 2003 . . RK (Six pages about banning are not enough? Fuck off, you sicko.)
(cur) (last) . . 00:11, 24 Aug 2003 . . 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.)

The various redirects and disambig pages are an indication that there's been a move war, which is certainly regrettable. However, I'm quite sane, and so are my other four personalities... ;-) Martin 00:15, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

(cur) (last) . . 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.)
(cur) (last) . . 00:35, 24 Aug 2003 . . RK (Reverting harassment. Sysop WikiEn list has been notified of this abuse.)

Don't get me wrong, RK - I don't like what I see on this page, and I'd love for it to be gone. But surely we have to work through these issues and work out a way for all of us, insane or not, to co-operate on Wikipedia. I'm concerned that just blanking this page will just sweep the issue under the carpet. Can't we talk, rather than having this silly edit war? Martin 00:44, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Ban threats

(cur) (last) . . 00:56, 24 Aug 2003 . . RK (Reverting harassment. WikiEn list has been notified. Netesq is now added to list of those risking a ban.)

I do wish I didn't have to communicate in this rather stilted manner, but needs must.

RK - it's really not the done thing to be threatening people with bans in your edit summaries. You've done this before - this page started after you requested a ban of anthere in your edit summaries. And now NetEsq is apparently "risking a ban". I hoped you'd learnt from last time, after you resolved your differences with Anthere, but here we are, back where we started. Martin 01:15, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin vs RK

from Talk:Anti-Semitism

Martin, that is nonsense. No Jewish person claims that it is discrimination that Christian schools that teach Christianity only accept Christians as students, and not Jews or others. That is not discrimination; that is religious freedom. No Jews, Muslims or atheists can force Christians to violate precepts of their religion. Similarly, no one should ever accuse Jews (or Muslims, etc.) of discriminating against others if their own religious schools are meant to teach members of their own faith! That is not what Danny meant when he was talking about people discriminating against Jews. You are making a strawman defense. When people discriminate against Jews, that is anti-Semitic. When you claim otherwise, you adopt the Neo-Nazi-like revisionism that Stevert and the Nation of Islam are trying to force upon us. They are trying to rewrite the dictionary to make anti-Semitism acceptable. Please don't fall for this childish form of wordplay. RK

Please don't compare wikipedia contributors to neo-Nazis. Martin

Sadly, Stevert used finely honed linguistic tactics characteristic of Neo-Nazis in many of his Wikipedia statements on Jews; his arguments were designed to mislead those who know little of the subject. Given your statements on this issue (especially on the ADL), it is clear that you have little or no knowledge of Judaism, anti-Semitism, or the Jewish community. As such, you were a prime candidate to fall for his propaganda. This is not meant as an ad homenim attack. I am saying that you must not rewrite the dictionary in order to deny the existence of most forms of anti-Semitism. As Ruhrjung points out "What's gained by a definition of Anti-semitism which is that very narrow that most anti-semitism by a normal usage (think of the Dreyfus affair) are excluded?" RK 22:55 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that when you said that I've "adopted neo-Nazi-like revisionism" that you didn't mean this as a personal attack. However, it felt like a personal attack, just as it felt like a personal attack when you called my position "ridiculous", "irrational" and "indefensible" above. Well, I'm tired of you insulting me RK. If you can't speak to me politely, don't speak to me. I sure as hell won't be listening. Martin 23:17 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Martin, your odd ideas about Jews (e.g. that the secular ADL somehow only accepts adult male Jews!), your attempts to rewrite away most forms of anti-Semitism as not being anti-Semitic, and your uncritical acceptance of Stevert's Jew-baiting were of concern to me. Despite your lack of knowledge on this subject, I have repeatedly tried to work with you. In fact, I like to think we have worked together successfully in the past. However it seems to me that - on this issue - your lack of knowledge, combined with your slightly confused ideas about anti-Semitism, prevents you from adding to this topic in any helpful way. I guess we will have to cooperate on other articles. RK 23:37 21 May 2003 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't say that the ADL only accepts adult male Jews. I said that it was something I'd heard, w.r.t. full membership, and asked if there was any truth in it. When RK said no, I accepted that. Describing this as my idea is incorrect. Martin 12:41, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

and it goes on...

from Talk:Anti-Semitism (etymology)

The only purpose in rewriting the dictionary, as you propose, is cover up Jew-hatred and make it acceptable. So why do you spend so much time on the Jews? Get over your obessession with them. RK

I spend rather less time writing about the Jews than you RK, so I propose you take back this attack.

I'm not advocating rewriting the dictionary. I'm simply stating that a tiny minority of folks, mostly racists, use the word differently. No doubt for political reasons, as you've identified. I don't use it in that way. Martin 13:05, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

from user talk:MyRedDice

It appears the /ban pages have been rendered inoperative by Wales' lack of support. You know I advocate creating a Shun: space where we could discuss the reasons for shunning, refusing to interact with, up to and including auto-reverting, certain users. EofT

Also, we definitely need policy on some issues: lying on the mailing list, by which I do not mean matters of judgement, but plain falsehoods provable with a link, and beyond that, labelling actions well within policy as "hatespeech", "harassment", etc.. This has gone beyond the bounds of libel in some cases, leaving Wikipedia legally exposed. EofT

On the general issue of how to deal with such cases, I believe you are totally right to try to keep everything said about one user's behaviour in one place, be in "/ban" or Community case: or Shun:. I totally oppose Wales' suggestion that somehow this be kept offline and dealt with only by him. That is just retaining the Wikipedia:GodKing role, and worse, it means no way to respond to lies advanced maybe by multiple cooperating parties - a sort of Wiki-police-state with a Wiki-Stasi. Although I also don't support the idea of a "community" consisting solely of people who bicker with no process making any serious decision, I do not think this is necessarily what happens when one has an open forum to expose behaviours in one place - so they can be seen to be consistent or not. Either deliberative democracy works, or it does not. If it does, then, there must be a place to deliberate. And it must be a wiki place not a mailing list place. So I encourage you to keep pushing for a standard for a common place to discuss these things so it does not spread all over. EofT

The sheer number of pages where RK's behaviour is discussed, where lies or errors of his have been answered is now quite impressive, and, since it cannot be centralized anywhere, it will spread like a cancer. Wales is clearly wrong, and you are clearly right, and so, this may be the issue that breaks Wikipedia from this absurd mailing list governance model. I will help any way that I can. EofT

I wouldn't say these things spread like cancers.... more like some kind of MeatBall:ForestFire. I've suggested before that these things should be sub-pages of wikipedia:problem users. Stevertigo suggests meta - and that has advantages too. However, this page has been moved quite enough for the time being, and a period of rest would serve many purposes. Martin 18:30, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

from user talk:Jimbo Wales

Jim, I made some comments regarding the status of /ban pages, responding to your mailing list comments about them, on Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks. I agree there should be no vote on such a page, but I do not agree that there should be no central place to comment on undesired behaviour of a given user or IP. Without such a central place, it's easier for them to get away with what they get away with. The name "/ban" I have always disliked, since among other things it isn't operative, and suggest a Shun: space or /shun page so that social issues with a person can remain separate, and so we do not imply that their participation is at stake. EofT 22:50, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I continue to note falsehoods posted in official places on /ban pages, and as discussed will refrain from baiting or commenting on more than the facts. EofT

Jimbo, since your comments to EoT to stop, EoT has ignored you, and has actually escalated his attacks on me. He is totally out of control. RK 23:01, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure, I will note that I added a link to the correction of mailing list falsehoods to the User_talk page of the only other user who expressed any interest (User:Stevertigo), and agreed with some other comments there without adding anything new other than a comment about poor strategies which could perhaps be taken as maybe implying something about RK. Meanwhile the corrections were made inaccessible, as were other comments on the User_talk:RK/ban page, by some sysop who in doing so wiped out the edit log. I request that we consistently wipe out *all* /ban pages if this is now the policy. RK should not be rewarded for his behaviour by the special privelege of erasing his record, while others respectfully leave the comments of others about them stand. As for being "out of control" or the comments being "hate-filled", I do in fact dislike RK quite intensely, for reasons any sane person can quickly comprehend, but I have been careful today to only answer specific falsehoods and note specific breaches of protocol. As protocol re: /ban pages is changing, I will leave those alone for now, although, I note for the record, I implemented the compromise I had suggested, that of simply archiving the page RK does not like. He considers this an escalation apparently - or at least says so. On pages where RK does not blatantly lie or make claims about my intent, I continue to treat him civilly. I advise others to do the same. But not to give in to him, period. It will be the doom of this service if he is allowed to succeed. EofT 00:30, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

" . . . I do in fact dislike RK quite intensely . . . " I think the entire membership of wiki and half the internet had worked that out. " . . . On pages where RK does not blatantly lie or make claims about my intent, I continue to treat him civilly . . . " Obviously EoT your definition of "civilly" differs from the rest of the planet. Try looking up the word in the dictionary and actually doing what it means for a change. RK holds strong opinions which can be expressed in debate tactlessly and provocatively. He needs to correct that. But your behaviour at this stage is little short of harrassment. It helps no-one, just creates aggro and provocation and is far beyond the grounds of what is acceptable. Unless you stop it you will find yourself being banned. Please stop it. FearÉIREANN 01:37, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The word I meant was "cordially". See Talk:Noam Chomsky if you think I cannot respond civilly to RK. As for your claim that my "behaviour at this stage is little short of harrassment," I call that nonsense, and refer you to the definition of that term in the law. It does not include simply pointing out falsehoods in the correct place, nor calling for a more proven system of justice to apply to RK's behaviour, or just restoring files that were until recently a part of the protocol. It is not me who "creates aggro and provocation", at least not today - you seem to me to have that impression due to his successful use of various propaganda techniques. Kudos to him for fooling you into seeing me as the aggressor, him as a victim, but I have been responding to RK quite evenly, and after his repeated libel and invocation of labels from psychiatry, I have a right to my opinion of him, plainly stated. If you find it not "acceptable", you are welcome to leave yourself, as he is. If you wish to advocate banning me, you may be the first to say so at User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban. Other than to correct falsehoods, I will not change a blessed word of what you write. That is much more consideration for your opinion of me, than the person in question has granted several others' opinion of him. EofT 01:46, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK holds strong opinions which can be expressed in debate tactlessly and provocatively. He needs to correct that.

You believe that. I believe that. However, I've not seen much indication that RK believes that. A public renunciation by RK of some of his "tactless" and provocative" statements would do much to aid matters. Martin 18:56, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

from user talk:RK

RK, here is a piece of advice. Take it for what it's worth:

A farmer told his son one day, "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig loves it."

Your friend, Ed Poor (aka Uncle Ed)

I offer User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/on applying Sharia to RK as an alternative to the Zionization of Wikipedia. Take it as you will. EofT 17:12, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Blanking out pages and using obscenities isn't helping your cause. It makes it seem you have something to hide. Let any "harrassment" against you stand as is and let the community judge what is presented out front. If you think whatever is present or written unfair or untrue, please ignore. --Jiang 00:51, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you wish to ignore hatespeech and lies directed at you, please do so. RK 00:54, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

RK has much to hide, Jiang. And he hides it regularly by blanking pages. I am glad that he here vindicates me for not ignoring the genuine hatespeech (labelling all who do not share his political opinions as sick, mentally ill, conspiring) and harassment (posting lies to the WikiEn list, up to and past the point of libel) he performs here on a daily basis. It is hardly hatespeech or harassment to point out provable lies and 'actionable libel or breaches of protocol (such as "moving" files while actually censoring them). Not that that's the only thing I've done, but it's the thing that seems to offend RK most. EofT 17:34, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

However, I will not sit quietly and allow this harassment. Further, as discussed by Jimbo and others on the WikiEn list, all these pages are a violation of Wikipedia norms. The people engaged in these actions are risking bans. RK 00:54, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If these pages do not belong on Wikipedia, they ought to be deleted, not blanked out. List them on VFD. You do not have the authority to blank out pages at your liking. --Jiang 00:59, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Um, this has already been discussed on the WikiEn list. Individuals do not have the power to blank out articles at their liking. This is not the case here. None of these entries are Wikipedia articles. They are simply a pile of hatespeech letters by EntmootsOfTrolls, who has been warned by more than person that he may be banned if he doesn't stop engaging in these actions. Please do not give him your support. RK 01:02, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is deliberate misrepresentation. The main issue on the WikiEn list is whether "/ban" pages should be supported by the mailing list cabal, and apparently they are not, and that group leaves it up to the individual users - so you may have support to move "/ban" files but not delete them. Not everyone shares my sense of humour or likes everything I said to RK, but, so far I have been asked only to leave a "clean paper trail" <--- Wales' actual words. Community case:RK is where the discussion continues: many people attacked by RK have left commentary there - all of which was or should have gone to the "/ban" page under the old regime. I support the "/ban" page and any comment on me should go to User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban where it will not be censored by me at all. EofT

I am not supporting the content on those pages. Although others have spoken against EofT's behavior, I do not see a consensus on deleting these pages. You are not allowed to blank out anything except what is in your personal profile. This is not a personal profile. If you think it is filled with lies, ask that it be deleted. What purpose does blanking it out serve? --Jiang 01:07, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

comment to Jiang re: You are not allowed to blank out anything except what is in your personal profile. -- not true - unless you are a banned user, I should think you can do what you like with pages in your own user space. Also, pages containing harassment or copyvio ought to be blanked. Angela

What is harassment? It has not been agreed upon that these pages qualify as "harassment". --Jiang

Harassment is, apparently, correcting lies with truth and countering harassment with humour. For those who dislike my response to RK, my answer is "get rid of him, and there's no problem." Note that I have no such interaction with any other user, while RK has this same style of abusive interaction with many others. That should be your first clue. EofT

Just to clarify, I wasn't commenting on whether or not any harassment was involved in this case; I was just saying that it's not necessarily true that one is not allowed to blank pages. Angela

I think this is not a good idea to blank pages. I've tried to understand what was going on, and my first impression is that there was nothing serious against you. And then you blanked the page. This was a good idea how can users form an opinion, where can they write something to support you ? Ericd 01:36, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

from talk:Creationism

Rhetoric like butchered my comment and stop lying are really too inflammatory. Wouldn't it be better to say "I'm not sure you grasped my point" or "That's not what I meant"? --Uncle Ed 18:27, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Take a look at this revision. RK clearly *DID* edit Rednblu's comments, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. As for RK's repeated attempts to invoke the scrutiny of Wikipedia's sysops, I doubt that he'll find much support from any sysops who are not already actively involved in this controversy, as RK has stepped on quite a few toes here at Wikipedia. Indeed, I make a point of not even responding to RK's posts unless it is absolutely necessary for me to do so, as this only encourages RK to cry wolf, even when he is clearly the agressor. -- NetEsq 18:54, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

True. I understand. Rednblu 20:50, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Untrue. I have not removed Rednblu's comments. Rednblu accidenally copied a paragraph, making the same paragraph appear twice. I fixed this minor error, leaving totally intact his original words. I have not censored his words at all. I cannot believe that you are screaming about an event that never happened; that just marks you as a dishonest or dumb person. RK 19:29, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

<< I have not censored [Rdnblu's] words at all. I cannot believe that you are screaming about an event that never happened; that just marks you as a dishonest or dumb person.>>

First of all, I'm not "screaming." Second, I did not accuse you of censorship. All I did was point to the fact that you edited Rednblu's commentary, even though that *may* have been inadvertent. At the same time, you have repeatedly poisoned the well of good faith with your confrontational personal style, leaving me to wonder whether you are "a dishonest or dumb person." My guess is that you are neither dumb or dishonest, just clumsy, narrow-minded, and overbearing. -- NetEsq 21:37, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think we should take all the "celebrity deathmatch" stuff to another venue. This page is supposed to be about development of the creationism article.

Let's not waste time and space saying any of the following things to one another here:

accuse you of censorship
censored his words
clumsy, narrow-minded, and overbearing*confrontational personal style
dishonest or dumb person
poisoned the well of good faith
screaming about an event that never happened

None of the above has any bearing on the article itself. Take it to your "talk" pages, gentlemen, or better yet eMail each other privately. Please. --Uncle Ed 14:12, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am all for civil discourse, but this itemized list of comments that you find objectionable serves no purpose whatsoever. In fact, it is exactly the same sort of waste of time and space that you hope to curtail, and it often ends up being part of the problem. To wit, a generalized call for restraint often encourages everyone to explain why they are the "true victims."

Please note that I am not claiming innocence here. I don't care who's right or wrong, nor do I care what other people think in this regard. What I care about is improving the quality of this article, and if I have to suffer petty insults to do that, I am more than willing to do so. -- NetEsq 16:25, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey! I am with both of you, if you both will allow me without confessing my own sins and lack of what NetEsq calls innocence. I want to have a conversation with Uncle Ed, though, on his talk page--to ask his forgiveness also for my future sins. :))

from user talk:Ed Poor

As you seem to be the most senior Wikipedian involved, I would like to express my outrage at the ease at which RK goes around accusing others of anti-Semitism intending to "win" arguments and push his agenda through certain Wikipedia articles as well as the lack of any "official" censure which it should have invoked long ago. 213.73.161.245 16:33, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The thing is, it doesn't actually help RK "win" his arguments, it just makes him look silly and full of bluster. Wikipedia doesn't, and shouldn't, operate on "official" censure, and doesn't, and shouldn't operate on appeals to authority (i.e. "senior Wikipedians"). RK can be talked down. I've seen many people do it before, and the result is often vastly superior articles, because people take the time to read first sources in order to counter his bluster. So I would suggest learning to talk things out rather than running to the cops. If you don't think you can deal with RK right now, work on something else until you're up for it - the Wikipedia is vast. Graft 16:38, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tell me something I don't know, 213! I've been working with RK for about 2 years now, and I don't think he'll ever change. We can only change our own ways of relating to others. One reason I get along all right with RK is that I always try to acknowledge his points and emphasize our common base. For example, he and I both oppose "hatred of Jews merely for being Jewish" -- even though he still considers me and/or my church anti-Semitic for various reasons (see Unification Church and anti-Semitism).

But I don't have to get lots of pleasant pats on the back from another contributor to work fruitfully with them. I concentrate on the Product, not on Personalities. "I don't care what they call me, as long as they don't call me late for dinner." ^_^ --Ed

Let me get this straight: Wikipedia condones such abuse? Does that mean I can go around insulting people I don't agree with too? 213.73.161.245 17:00, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not condone abuse. If you want to make a case against RK, I guess I'll have to help you. But I'd hope rather that you would just ignore his "you are lying, you dirty rat" rhetoric. You'll notice that I try hard to turn the other cheek rather than swap hard words with people who try to insult me.

Despite what Graft says, there are means of "official censure" -- it's just that we generally try to avoid letting things go that far. I do have the power to ban users, even "signed in" folks like RK. I just hate like the dickens to actually exercise that power.

We prefer a long, drawn out procedure which gives the "offender" time to think things over. In those rare cases when a user consistently refuses to abide by the guidelines, I have kicked off some people. But this is only permitted on a case-by-case basis as authorized by the site owner, Jimbo Wales.

For starters, tell me a few things that have offended you, and I'll see if I can get the "offender" to lower his tone. Or give me your e-mail address and we can discuss it privately. --Uncle Ed 17:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I meant - yeah, "official censure" exists, just as "senior Wikipedians" exist, but appealing to them should be a measure of last resort, not the first. Graft 18:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How can you expect me take your response seriously if his contributions page is in plain view for all to see? Can you at least warn him to stop his abusive accusations? I can barely stand his innuendo and straw men as it is. 213.73.161.245 21:14, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

How can you expect me to take your protests seriously if you won't even paste a few quotes here, on my talk page? I'm not going to start an inquiry which could lead to someone's possible banning merely on the basis of a few plaintive cries. We have serious work to do here. Either provide me with details of the "abusive accusations" or I'm going to ignore you. Sorry to put it so bluntly, but I'm very busy tonight. --Uncle Ed 21:21, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Here you go. I'm curious to know if you think this is normal, because I don't.

(The only question is whether people feel such antisemitic harassment is acceptable or not)
(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?)
(The above is a classic case of bald-faced anti-Semitism. Wiki Sysops, please ban this blatant and open antisemite. )
(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. )
(Restoring material deleted without reason. This is encycloepdia, not a Jew-bashing session. Rather, we explain the history of how and why this slogan was developed, funded, accepted, etc. )
(History of the idea. (Why has all the historical context been left out?) There are entire books on the history of this subject, it is not just an excuse to trash Jews.)

Well, the first one seems normal. Most of the rest seem to be calling others "anti-Semitic" -- which can grate on one's nerves, to be sure. The peremptory call for a ban in particular irks me.

But frankly if this is the worst RK has said, then (I hate to break it to you) it hardly even merits my mentioning it to him. Really, just grow some thicker skin. --Ed

Sadly very typical. It can make everyone taking the legitimate position in favour of Zionism look like they're part of the conspiracy to support this. I can hardly imagine that if one engaged in similar rants *against* these positions that it would be tolerated. It's clear to me, unlike Ed says, that these historical events did not happen to RK himself, nor are they likely to happen to him living in NYC, or at least, no more than any other New Yorker. There are no excuses for this. This is endangering the project by spreading libel throughout the edit logs. Those people who have attached, or had attached, their names to their userids, have a legitimate legal case against User:RK. And possibly against Wikipedia. Time to deal with this. EofT 21:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Does that mean you wouldn't mind if I ever decided to give him a taste of his own medicine? Anyway, I'm not asking for a ban, yet. I do appreciate it though, if somebody upstairs would make it clear such behaviour is not tolerated. 213.73.161.245 22:04, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mouth. Words. I'm quite capable of putting my own in.... You don't seem to be "listening" very well. So let's just go back to making neutral articles, okay? --Ed

Okay, I skimmed the pipermail link you put above, which goes all the way back to November 2002 - and was delighted to find my name. But honestly, I've gotten so used to RK's verbal style that I hardly even pay attention any more. If you disagree with him, you're "anti-Semitic". So what? All he's really saying is that you're "against" him (and his people). As for his continual call for bans on one person or another, I mentally translate that into "please cut that out" so readily that it barely even enters my consciousness.

RK is a good contributor, and his bark is worse than his bite (if you know what I mean).

But what do you want me to do? Ask RK to stop calling people "anti-Semitic"? Ask him to stop using the word "liar" towards people he thinks are giving incorrect info? Please be specific.

well, that would be a start. If someone gives incorrect information, it is wrong to assume they are lying: they could be mistaken, and believe they are correct. -- Tarquin 16:26, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If someone can think of a way of calling these faults to RK's attention in a diplomatic way, more power to him. I'll think about it over the next few days... --Ed

Any objections to moving this to Wikipedia:Community case RK with the rest? Martin 19:58, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Splendid. Martin 16:12, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

back to edit war mode

(cur) (last) . . 15:37, 26 Aug 2003 . . RK (Deleting outrageous libel and harssment. WikiEn list has been informed of harassment by Martin and Entmoots Of Trools. DO NOT restore this page.)

Would you like to be specific about what on this page is "outrageous libel"? Martin 15:56, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)