This issue is really getting tiresome. Danny, a Wikipedia administrator, is again harassing me. Danny keeps jumping into articles where a discussion about the content is taking place...and instead of offering constructive criticism about how the article should be changed, he makes multiple ad homenim attacks towards me.

For instance, consider the recent issue over what should be mentioned in the article on [[Maimonides]] (Rabbi Moses ben Maimon.) I have been doing a lot of reading on this issue for a number of years. I am trying to have the points of view of several mainstream Maimonidean scholars included in the article. Here is the situation, pre-Danny:

I brought forth quotes and citations to illustrate the point of view of these people, who are generally regarded as experts in the field. In contrast, Jayjg won't let me quote anybody, and is making the claim that this is part of some Orthodox versus non-Orthodox struggle (It isn't, and I do not understand where his idea comes from; ironically, I haven't quoted any figures from non-Orthodox schools of thought!) I have repeatedly told Jay that I would be happy for this article to include points of view from people with other views, and I am still waiting for him to bring examples. He hasn't offered any at all.

Thus, the only points of view mentioned so far are the ones from the sources I brought.

JFW had a different complaint. He says that he believes that somewhere, some Orthodox rabbis must have written on this topic, and that we should include their views as well. This isn't a problem, as I totally agree with JFW. I would be very happy if brought forth their views on these issues. So far he hasn't. But I look forward to learning from any other points of view that JFW may yet find. This is how Wikipedia articles grow and improve. No problem, right?

But into this Danny started making ad homenim attacks. Danny interjected:

Oh, but RK, you mentioned that you frequent the JTS library. They certainly have an Or Sameach, as would any yeshiva in New York and Westchester. For people who are genuinely intersted in Jewish

scholarship,

they are far more accessible than any journal you can

quote.

Or are you incapable of conducting "scholarship" that

does

not support your POV

This personal attack is a violation of Wikipedia standards, yet Danny uses his position as an administrator to get away with repeated personal abuse. He is saying that I am dishonestly not reporting points-of-view that I do not agree with.

(A) That is a total lie, and a defamation of character.

(B) Curiously, Danny is unable to disagree with a single sentence I contributed; he himself offers no reason to doubt that the quotes I offered are accurate. He certainly offers no other citations.

(C) If Danny thinks that other important points of view exist, then by all means go find them and help contribue to the article. But do not slander a Wikipedia contributor for not including points of view that they are not even aware of! We have thousands of contributors who bring new points of view every day. Do we harass them for not bringing counter-points-of-view? No! We'd drive away all of contributors if we did this! If we think something is missing, we simply add it. Is this unreasonable?

(D) Danny is lying about my ability to go to a library and look up the specific Hebrew sources that JFW requested. See, Danny and I have spoken on the telephone many times, and he knows that I do not speak Hebrew. When I want to understand what a Hebrew text means, I go to established authorities known for expertise in translation, and I do not attempt to translate it myself. Danny certainly had no problem with any other user on Wikipedia doing this. Why am I the only person who has to read ancient Hebrew in order to write on Judaica articles? Do all of our contributors to Christianity articles have to read ancient Greek? That is just insane.

(E) Danny writes "As for the topic at hand, RK, since the vast majority of material on this topic is in Hebrew, as are all the primary sources, you seem incapable of conducting any 'serious scholarship.' " There are two huge problems with this personal attack

* Danny is confused about the difference between original scholarship, which we DO NOT accept on Wikipedia, and describing the views of scholars, which is encouraged. I am quoting established authorities and summarizing their views, as is standard for Wikipedia. If he really disagrees the views that I have described, then he is free to look for other views to add. Isn't that always the standard operating procedure? He should not dishonestly attribute what I am writing as my own original research, in order to impugn the views of scholars he may disagree with.

* Danny is making factualy false claims. A huge amount of scholarship on this topic is in English, by many of the world's leading scholars. Any claim to the contray is a bad joke. Just go to the huge JTS or HUC libraries in Manhattan, and you will see that half of their collections are in the English language, including many fine scholarly journals. In fact, more Judaica is written in English than in any other language in the world. Danny's factually false claim to the contrary does not improve the article, it is just more harassment of me.

Danny's personal attacks have been a long-term problem, and we really need to do something about this. He needs to stop following me around from article to article making ad homenim comments. Being a Wikipedia administrator means being a role model, not someone who uses a personal grudge to harass users.

Robert (RK)

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail