[WikiEN-l] RK - various

[Angela]

Lots of replies in no particular order


*Anthere wrote:
> When has RK been a sysop ?

He hasn't. I think people are confusing him with RickK
again. He was nominated for sysophood by Stevertigo
but RK refused the nomination.

*Axel wrote:
>I have ended the temporary ban on RK.

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.

*Ray Saintonge wrote:
>the mentor could be a person whom RK personally
trusts, and to whom he would pay attention.

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.

*172 wrote:
>In short, if Wikipedia is to present both sides, it’s
contingent on letting RK be RK.

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. 

*Björn Lindqvist wrote:
>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.

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.

*RK wrote:
>Now Martin and Angela are cooperating in vandalizing
my home page

Neither Martin not I have ever edited your user page.
Polite comments, suggestions and questions should not
be regarded as vandalism.

*Tim Starling wrote:
>Eloquence obviously has a different idea of "simple
vandalism" than I do.

This is the danger of blocking anyone. There is no
clear guidance on what "simple vandalism" is. The
[[Vandalism in progress]] page shows different people
have different definitions and sections are often
moved from this page to the [[Problem users]] page by
those who do not regard something as vandalism. On a
related note, I don't understand why the procedure has
to be different for IPs and logged in users. If an
anon had made those edits they would have been banned
immediately and no-one would have objected in the
slightest. IPs are frequently blocked for far less.
Why should someone be protected simply because they
bothered to log in?

*Erik Moeller wrote:
>Nobody ganged up on RK. I oppose unbanning him until
he retracts his
"Nazipedia" remarks.

I agree on both points.

*Axel Boldt wrote:
>The issue could have brought up on the mailing list.
In the past, we have often discussed weeks and weeks
before banning long-term Wikipedians. 

The issue *was* brought to the mailing list, and to
the "problem users" page, and to "RK/ban" and to
"Community case RK" and to Meta. He has been discussed
ad nauseum and it was about time someone did something
about it. He has been given countless chances to
reform and he hasn't attempted to in the slightest. I
can't see how a temporary ban is going to change his
behavior either and I fully support a permanent ban.


Regards,

Angela.


________________________________________________________________________
Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
Messenger http://mail.messenger.yahoo.co.uk