User:Anthere/summary

Eloquence opinion : Shortly after I sent a mail to Jimbo asking him to examine whether RK should be banned for his obnoxious behavior, RK started vandalizing several user and talk pages because he felt *his* talk page was being vandalized. The vandalism: People placed comments on it. I have temporarily banned him (and no, I won't read through his lengthy diatribes which will inevitably follow). I strongly suggest turning this temporary ban into a permanent one, at least for a month or so. I oppose unbanning him until he retracts his "Nazipedia" remarks.

Jack Nelson : I support this; he went a bit insane there.

LDan : That's good, but I strongly believe that this ban should be temporary. Eventually, RK not want to act like this. Even Lir was unbanned eventually, and RK was, for the most part, a good user.

Delirium : I disagree with both a temporary and a permanent ban. The vandalizing user talk pages and so on is over the line, but does not warrants a temporary ban. Other users who did the same, including EntmootsOfTrolls and BuddhaInside, among others, who were not summarily banned. I don't see why RK should be treated differently. As for a permanent ban, while RK has been somewhat obnoxious in his complaining about anti-Semitism, several other people (notably SV) have been equally obnoxious in their complaining from the other side RK has also added quite a bit of useful content to Wikipedia, much of it entirely unrelated to Judaism, Israel, or related issues.
Later : My personal preference would be to unban him in some relatively short period of time (perhaps 2-3 days to allow things to cool down slightly), and dispatch to him an email informing him that he has been unbanned, and is welcome to return in a productive fashion, but will be rebanned if he engages in any vandalism. If he does in fact engage in vandalism again, then I'd support banning him for an indefinite period of time

Vicki Rosenzweig disagrees with the fact a sysop is doing the banning.

Tim Starling disagrees with the fact a sysop is doing the banning ("I strongly believe that sysops should not be capable of punishing other users in this way. Threats of such actions could greatly increase the perception of a power structure; a pecking order.") He apparently disagrees with the banning "RK got angry, he lashed out at a few users. He didn't replace the contents of an article with "poo poo"."

Axelbold disagrees with Eloquence banning. He said "RK rudely and unexcusably replaced four people's user pages with angry messages, that's all. Wikipedia was never under attack." Axelbold unbanned RK. Maybe I haven't followed all those discussions. Here on the list at least, I have not seen any serious discussion, and certainly nothing approaching a consensus, on banning RK. As it happens, now serveral people bring arguments for banning him here on the list. I haven't made up my mind, but I want to make up my mind -- I want to discuss first and ban later, not the other way round.

Eclecticology agrees with Vicky : Anything more than a short term "emergency" ban needs to be a community decision. I've never been a big fan of banning, and I make no exception with regard to RK. I support 24 hours as the appropriate banning period. This is an otherwise productive Wikipedian who has out-of-control moments. The disrespectful "Nazipedia" comments should likely be acknowledged as having come in the midst of a rage. In cases like this we need some kind of a "mentor" system. In this case the mentor could be a person whom RK personally trusts, and to whom he would pay attention. When he shows signs of going out of control, that person could say "STOP" or some other agreed secrt word, and get the appropriate reaction.
To Abe : If people who would otherwise bring sane and rational opinions to a discussion keep quiet simply to avoid the wrath of an extremist the project has thus been diminished.

Gutza : Although I don't agree with Erik about enforcing a permanent ban, I think the temporary ban for a day was welcome. RK obviously lost it, he was calling everybody names, he didn't accept even the most mildly tempered comments and he started vandalizing user pages because people were placing comments on his talk page. So I agree with Erik -- he just did what he had to in order to chill everybody down. I don't think a month's ban would solve anything. RK should either be banned for good (which I don't support), or receive chill-down kicks (IRC sense), which I fully support. Goodbye, to the troll who has been temp-banned.

Anthere : Perhaps temporary is best first. I am sure it will make him realize that he can't do anything he wants to, with no punishment ever. Temporary banning is mostly a way to say to someone "we would like you to stay with us, but you really have to work on your behavior". It is a time-break, to allow thoughts. A temporary banning is also a nice compromise between those who do not accept that situation any more, and those who think it is acceptable. And imho, temporary banning is an option that any sysop could "initiate", that is just to us, all together, to discuss what temporary means, and how we could use that time-out.

Matthew Brown :

Gareth Owen : to the comment "Fuck you sick Nazi bastards" : Come back Special Relativity kooks, all is forgiven..

Bogdan Giusca : Goodbye, Uncle Leo*! :-)

Mav : Dude! You have any idea how paranoid that sounds? Just because people disagree with you and you happen to be a Jew doesn't mean that that are anti-Semites! Oh, and anybody who disagrees with me is a homophobic bastard! ;-)

Quercus Robur : Could you stamp about and slam the door a little more loudly on your way out? A few of my neighbours didn't quite hear you.

Dante Alighieri : Even worse, accusing the entire Wikipedia community of /anything/ is patently absurd.... as a matter of fact, it's something that bigots usually do... making broad generalizations about entire groups of people. I support the banning of him in the first place. He would have unbanned him if Axel had not done so.

172 : I am going to make strong pleas against any moves to ban RK or marginalize him. He generates chaos and a lot of ill-will. He’s often obnoxious (but he can magnanimously admit that he was wrong). He even alienates his own supporters, and often attacks potential allies with great bitterness. ... RK’s intransigence, and often flat out bizarre behavior, but it’s an indispensable part of a confluence of opposing forces required for Israeli-Palestinian neutrality.

Stan Shebs : We shouldn't be tolerating bad behavior at all. If we make the excuse that we have to tolerate it for the sake of content

Ed : While technically correct, I think your ban was unwise. RK did indeed blank some personal pages, the C-J talk page, and wrongly accused Martin of using an alias. I would like to un-ban RK.

KNOTT, Theresa : I think a few days is enough time for him to cool down. I propose he is unbanned on 5th October.

Björn Lindqvist : I won't lie, I'm QUITE HAPPY that RK is banned now. Sure he added a lot of important information to religious topic and so on, but please! He has called everyone that has ever been in a dispute with him an anti-semite. Not only those contributors who debate with him in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as I firsth thought, even contributors who has praised his work and/or are Jews themselves have gotten the stamp "anti-semite". It is no fun for one who has spent a lot of time and effort fighting racisim to be called that again and again and again. ... But I get offended by RK, a countless number of anons get offended by RK and many contributors have left WP because of RK's antics. It's impossible to edit articles in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because if you do, RK will be there reverting and calling you an anti-Semite. It is not fun and is one of the reasons why I don't spend as much time on WP anymore.
And it isn't like he hasn't been warned. He has been varned many many times, he got countless more chances than for example EofT did but he has never listened, not changed the slightest. He has gotten his chances and he has burnt them all. It is time to say goodbye.

Angela : I don't think that was a good idea. The last thing we need is block/unblock wars. There was a lot of objection to the EofT ban, but it would be very wrong for any sysop to simply go and unblock the account.
To Ec mentor proposition : I'm not convinced you could find such a person. RK regards all comments to him as personal attacks. All I said to him was that Martin's comment should not be regarded as vandalism and I explained why Martin may have put what he did on RK's page. RK then accused me of being a vandal for having made such a comment.
To Abe defense : No, we can not let RK be RK if this means allowing such abominable behavior. To suggest that Wikipedia can not be NPOV without RK's help is ridiculous. And it's not just the Israeli-Palestinian articles that you mention that he is doing this on.
To Björn feeling offended : I think this is the part 172 and others are missing. A lot of people complain about RK, but there are doubtless many more people who do not and simply respond by avoiding editing any pages that RK edits (myself for one), or worse leave Wikipedia.
About banning : I don't understand why the banning procedure has to be different for IPs and logged in users. Oppose unbanning him until he retracts his "Nazipedia" remarks. I fully support a permanent ban. RK has been discussed ad nauseum and it was about time someone did something about it.

Adam : Now that RK knows he can be banned, and will hopefully not continue in his previous course of action. I beg the court show him mercy and allow him the chance to atone himself. He has been punished enough

Fred Dauder He certainly is a known quantity and has done an enormous amount of harm, but because you seldom edit you don't know. Essentially it has generally been his way or the highway. He probably should have been banned long ago for reasons that have nothing to do with the current anti-semitic accusations. He has a long-standing pattern of tenditious advocacy of an ideocentric point of view, a sort of scientism, that simply will not admit any alternative. I first ran into it on the chiropractic article. He simply would not admit a postitive point of view into the article. Now if I see he is editing actively on an article I just abandon it.

Netesq : While I never would have called for RK to be banned, I wholeheartedly support the soft ban imposed by Eloquence on RK. I have no doubt that RK _is_ a frequent victim of anti-semitism, but that does not excuse his outrageous and appalling behavior towards other Wikipedians, both Jewish and gentile. Bravo, Eloquence! Well done!

Jtdirl : He has and has rightly been banned. Eloquence has done the community some service. Robery behaviour could no longer be tolerated. It was making a mockery of the whole wikipedia project and had to be stopped.

Jiang : That's what we do for all vandalism - we revert on sight. Does this mean we let these vandals go? No, we ban them! The same applies here.

llywrch

Christopher Mahan

elian in answer to 172. I intended to keep myself silent in this debate, but this statement was simply too much. Not everybody who often cries NPOV in recent changes is also a good NPOV writer. If RK's writings correspond to your vision of how NPOV should manifest itself in Wikipedia, I don't regret to have left the english Wikipedia. Sorry for the personal attack -- normally I hold you in a very high esteem -- but your statement made me sad and angry.

Robert  : Fuck you sick Nazi bastards.

After Stevertigo was exposed for being a Nazi (and this was PROVEN, not alleged) you sick Nazi bastards began harassing me and vandalizing my home page. You lied about him and his edits, falsely accused me of saying things that SV wrote, and then attacked me?

Then you accuse ME of being a Nazi?

Then you harassed me on my own home page, and then BANNED me when I pointd out that such behaviour is wrong?

Never in my life I have ever seen such a community of violent Jew haters.

Nor, for that matter, such a bunch of cowardly Jews, who privately write me that they all agree with me, but publicly refuse to say their names.

Fine. You win. Nazipedia it is. I am gone. But from now on the word will *widely* spread about the violent anti-Semitism that Wikipedia encourages, the way that it allows Nazis free reign, and the way it bans those who speak out against hatespeech.

You've just bought yourselves bad publicity, and a well deserved reputation as a home for lying, leftist anti-Semites.

Goodbye.

Robert RK

Rickyrab: I am hardly a Jew-hater or an antisemite; indeed, I am a Yid myself (a Jew, an Israelite, a Levite even) and I still support a temporary ban on RK, because he picks over small details, tiny, bupkis, not worth whining about, and considering Wikipedia to be "Nazipedia" because of those tiny little nitpicks. PLEASE, NOT EVERY BIT OF DISSENSION IS ANTI SEMITIC!Rickyrab 00:29, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)