Stan wrote in response to letter arguing that RK is a necessary evil:
"There are people who have some detailed knowledge of the
Israeli Palestinian conflict, a generally neutral point of view, and a
commitment to scholarly investigation, myself for instance, but I've
generally avoided those articles because Wikipedia is not paying me enough
to put up with constant abuse and name-calling by RK."
Although I agree in principle with Stan, who points out that RK's just a petty
partisan, who ought to quit haunting the Israeli-Palestinian articles in
favor of users with real expertise and a grasp of NPOV, there's no
chance in hell of this far-fetched fantasy working out. Passions run so
high on both sides in real life that it's inevitable that a new User:RK or
User:Palestine liberator could discover Wikipedia any day, launch an
ideological campaign under the guise of NPOV, and in turn attract a new
set of rival partisans. We'd certainly like to see better, but there's no
way Wikipedia, and all the freedom it affords, can act against users
determined to use Wikipedia as a battlefield to play out their frustrations.
Moreover, RK's not the only partisan. Banning RK would just throw
off the balance existing right now between the partisans. Why don't
we just accept the fact that the Israeli-Palestinian articles are the
most conflict-prone of all on Wiki, given the real-world political realities?
Rather than getting rid of this necessary evil, let's continue to referee
the RK-types? All his disputes end with NPOV by stalemate - and
that's what Wiki needs above all else. It doesn't matter how you get
there.
In addition, his response noted that not banning RK would generate
more bad behavior. However, reread my arguments. I argued that
there's a peculiar long-run benefit derived from his bad behavior.