User talk:RK/Departure

Uncle Ed speaks

When user:Lir routinely deleted the comments of other users from his talk page, hardly anyone objected. Certainly no one made such an issue of it as to re-insert their deleted comments. I guess no one wanted to provoke Lir.

Apparently, some users felt that this case was different, although I fail to see why Lir was allowed to ward off unwanted comments but not RK. Isn't this a double standard?

I propose moving all discussions about the, um, "recent unpleasantness" to the Wikipedia:problem users page.

I also think we should un-ban RK immediately.

I for one agree. Even if I might feel differently if it were my userpage that was used for graffiti (for instance while I was sleeping or away from home, and would not be aware of what had happened for an extended period), objectively someone would probably notice it pretty soon and step in to revert the changes... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:01, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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. --Jiang 22:32, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If what Lir did was wrong, that should not be tolerated. It doesn't excuse RK's vandalism. --Jiang 22:32, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Grandfather Ryu Speaks

Temporary Ban Process

I do not approve of the process by which the recent ban on RK was enacted. Banning a user is not an action to be taken lightly, nor implemented unilaterally. And while I hardly approve of RK's actions, his repeated, inappropriate edits to my user page and that of other users really does not constitute the sort of emergency that justifies a ban. Had RK conducted his little tirade on the home page, or on a number of frequently-viewed articles in the article space, Eloquence would have been justified in his actions. As it stands, however, Eloquence's actions appear to be retaliatory, and should not stand.

Perhaps Eloquence would like to volunteer to discontinue use of any of his admin capabilities for a few weeks by way of penance.

RK's behavior

I imagine that RK will wish to return to the project.

He should be welcomed, provided that he discontinues his personal attacks. Leveling a charge of racism or anti-Semitism is a grave matter, and he does it far too lightly and often. In pursuit of NPOV on touchy Israel/Palestine issues, contributors must be able to speak their mind without fear of such charges. In such a context, someone who is merely misinformed, or who has articulated their views poorly, may appear to harbor anti-Semitic feelings even though this is not the case. Contributors to such articles deserve the benefit of the doubt. RK must stop his attacks on them.

He must also show a greater willingness to engage others in conversation. I find his attempts to "salt" the historical record, by removing and changing comments in discussion pages, to be particularly troubling. This too must stop. Like others, RK must be open to constructive criticism and be willing to engage others in conversation on his talk page and on the talk pages for the articles he edits. The fact that Lir and perhaps others have stifled and "salted" discussion in like manner does not excuse the behavior.

Louis Kyu Won Ryu 16:23, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Poetic Justice

While I never would have called for RK to be banned, I wholeheartedly support the soft ban imposed by Eloquence on RK. RK has been screaming relentlessly for many respected Wikipedians to be banned, and it is about time that he got a taste of his own medicine. The only question that remains is whether RK has learned his lesson, which I strongly doubt. Particularly telling were RK's posts to the WikiEN list, after the soft ban was imposed, where he referred to Wikipedia as "Nazipedia" and promised to expose the anti-semitism of Wikipedia to the world. Even more telling were his claims that other "cowardly Jews" expressed support for him privately, but were unwilling to support him publicly. 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! -- NetEsq 17:21, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Banning people should be a last resort and only done for the most serious of reasons. In RK's case it has become impossible to defend is behaviour on any grounds; his wild exaggurations, his verbal intimidation, his POVing of almost everything he touches. EoT was banned and and RK not so because in their nasty row EoT crossed the line, RK didn't quite, merely hovered around it. This time, in his actions on other people's pages he has gone one step too far. Wiki has shown him astonishing tolerance. But even Wiki's tolerance has limits and RK has exhausted them. It was simply a matter of when, not if, RK would go too far. He has and has rightly been banned. Others have been banned for less and few have been given as many chances to repent as RK. Eloquence has done the community some service. And if should somehow bring home to Robert how ludicrous his behaviour was, Eloquence's actions may do Robert some service also. Robery behaviour could no longer be tolerated. It was making a mockery of the whole wikipedia project and had to be stopped. FearÉIREANN 22:27, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

problem ex-user

Eloquence temporarilly banned RK for "vandalizing" other contributors' user pages, and talk:Christian-Jewish reconciliation, blanking them and replacing them with personal attacks. RK apparently did this in response to other contributors' leaving messages on his user talk page.
User:AxelBoldt un-banned RK the next day.
RK announced on the WikiEN-l mailing list that he was leaving Wikipedia.

See also: The RK page on meta

Ban RK?

Yes - Temporarily (6)
- anthere. Respectfully, I placed a sort of summary of people opinion as expressed on the ml and elsewhere at User:Anthere/summary (there were so many discussions about whether this is allowed or not, and in which space, that I have no idea what is in the rules or against the rules.) Feel free to move it.
- User:rickyrab for being a nudnik (a pest) to the whole Jewish/Catholic debate.
- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:50, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC) took a closer look at the specific events which precipitated the user block, RK is the one who was out of control at that particular point in time. He definitely needs to get control of himself, and realize that he is not indispensible to wikipedia.
- Uncle Ed: I changed my mind and now see the wisdom of both Eloquence's temporary ban and Axelbolt's removal of it; sometimes a "time-out" like this is just what it takes to help people calm down.
- User:Vudujava Unquestionably. I think the problem here is that people are weighing his contributions against his behavior. I really don't care if he wrote half of the 'pedia, the behavior exhibited by RK is unacceptable at any time. I disagree with the ban being lifted. I think an apology to the community is in order first. vudu 17:11, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- Secretlondon I've only been involved in one debate, that on the 'prejudice against Christians in Country X' series. He refused to compromise and 'won' by default. I know controversial issues attract zealots but he didn't seem capable of listening. Secretlondon 22:42, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)
- FearÉIREANN (very reluctantly. RK's behaviour at this stage seems out of control and no amount of appeals to him to stop seem to work. Banning should be a last resort. As he ignores all appeals, POVs articles, blanks articles, calls 2/3 of wiki anti-semite (and wikipedia nazipedia) what alternative is there? He has been shown a degree of toleration no-one else has been shown. Indeed many of those banned caused far less trouble and insulted far fewer people. If we don't impose a soft ban, how else are we going to deal with RK's at this stage disgraceful behaviour? And if we don't impose a soft ban, what sort of message will RK's continuing bad behaviour send to everyone else? So, in the belief that there is now no alternative, a reluctant 'yes') Someone put my vote under the heading of 'ban permanently'. I never advocated that. I mentioned a soft ban, not a permanent ban.
  - OK. I hadn't seen the full nature of RK's comments on the w-list (for some reason I've received no messages since 1 Oct) but now that I have, for what its worth I wish to publicly record a change in my vote from a soft to a hard ban. RK is so hyper-sensitive he reads anti-semitism into the wrong location of a comma, but that w-list message is simply the last straw. Raving bigots like RK, who try to intimidate and bully everyone through wild libellous allegations, cannot be tolerated. Wiki gave him so many chances, far more than most organisations would have. Having read his w-list message the only response I can come up with is good riddance. He can bring his spiteful, nasty bigotry to somewhere else and stop spewing it all over wiki. FearÉIREANN 01:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No (1)
- User:Lir I believe Erik abused his sysop powers, when he banned RK.
- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick the process is "out of control" and should be halted immediately. If RK can not reform his ways, we will soon find out. Require him to talk to Jimbo before reinstating him without prejudice. If he turns out to be a recidivist; act then, if at all.

Some opinions expressed elsewhere.

Yes:

Lotsa folks who I can't be bothered to list

No:

I removed this from wikipedia:problem users because (A) the MeatBall:ForestFire has spread to enough places already, thanks, and (B), RK isn't a problem user, because he's left. Martin 00:13, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

from user talk:MyRedDice

Hi there -- just wanted to say I appreciate the work you do -- and specifically your willingness to try to deal with RK. My first major edit here -- Race and intelligence -- ran into his meanness and intransigence, but I moved on and perservered, but I have to say he does get under one's skin, doesn't he? Anyway, thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Bcorr 16:34, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From User talk:RK-"Your page blanking and comment: "This is no joke. I will not allow Stevertigo and other anti-Semitic racists to vandalize this page. RK 16:17, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)" are unacceptible. It has been logged to m:RK.-戴眩sv 16:36, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)" Just to make sure you understand. 戴&#30505sv 16:46, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Re [1]: Bitter much? (Pretty funny though. ;-) -- Cyan 00:55, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Martin,

You're very good at refactoring. Would you please collect all the comments about RK, which led up to and commented on the recent temp-ban, and put them in an appropriate place?

I would appreciate this.

Thanks.

--Uncle Ed 16:23, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Martin. I had read that letter, and it is a genuinely sad fact that it didn't change my view of RKs character one bit. Think about it.

That said, I think we have to ban people based on actions, and people should have to try very hard to get themselves banned. In my opinion RK was getting there, and if I had to guess, he very probably was heading in that direction.

Things certainly were at such a point at which nothing anybody else said to him was making an impact, and if he would have been able to pull himself away from the precipice and apologize for everyone about his misunderstandings, it would have to have come from within him.

As I say, I think the chances were overwhelming that he was for the high jump, but in the event, at the last moment, before he was finally committed to a course out of wikipedia, to my eyes he appears to have been pushed.

The whole list of stuff he did subsequently on the mailinglist, including the threats, should certainly be very thoroughly sorted out with him, but those should be conditions made for his reinstatement, rather than those (after-ban) acts being determinative as to the basic question of making the ban permanent or not.

One thing does swing me towards the idea that he might warrant permanent banning, and that is the incessant nature of his abusive behaviour. It doesn't really take anything to set him off, which suggests that the behaviour almost certainly is incorrigible. And in that sense, purely as a practical matter, (assuming we haven't created another Michael, or worse) wikipedia may be better off without him.

But I am iffy about the procedure that was followed to get us to that point. It is possible I am often too anal retentive about procedure, but then that is my nature, and I think that may be incorrigible as well :-/ Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 18:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back, RK. Speaking only for myself, please feel free to delete anything that I post to your Talk page. NetEsq

Same here (no sarcasm intended!). I just mean that freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. It includes the right to say "I don't want to talk to you". In a community where people depend on cooperation, when someone cries out for help, saying "Please allow me the freedom to stay away from two people who I feel are harassing me", that person should not be attacked, and forced to "suffer their slings and arrows", which were designed to irritate, and not communicate. Forcing someone to feel harassed isn't right...and then getting mad at them when they get angry is , to me, very mean-spirited. RK 21:28, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

This is why I wrote the above paragraphs on the Talk pages of three Wikipedia users yesterday. Unlike them, however, I accept that they have the right not to respond, and they have the right to throw my "mail" away unread. Despite the fact that I am angry with them, I will not harass them; unlike them I will not encourage other users to harass them by reverting their User-Talk pages, so that they lose total control of their own freedom of speech. Unlike them, I respect the rights that they deny me. That's the difference between someone who is an actual social liberal, and a quasi-liberal who just likes to sound righteous. RK 21:28, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Off-topic warning: The same is true of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means the freedom to be free from any religion at all, if one so chooses. Not that I personally make that choice, but I respect the choice of others to make this choice. RK 21:28, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

<< I don't understand why Wikipedia Jews write one thing to me in private, and say somethign else in public. >>

People do and say a lot of strange things, but (IMHO) there is nothing cowardly about people expressing solidarity in private while publicly disocciating themselves from someone, such as you, who is engaging in reckless and irresponsible behavior. NetEsq

Except that in private they say that my words are not reckless and irresponsible. And a long distance phone call I got from a fellow Wikipedia expressed near total agreement. But not a word on the Wiki-En list. I still think you miss the point that many people are afraid to speak their mind. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, no less immune to groupthink than others social groups.RK

<< Also, I see that you still pretend to be confused about the issue. Two people kept harassing me on my own User Talkpage. I excercised my right to remove their comments from my Talk User page. >>

I am not the slightest bit confused about this issue. On this note, speaking only for myself, please feel free to delete any and all of my comments from your Talk page. If I feel the need to reinstate said comments, I will do so on my own Talk page. As for the claim that you were the victim of harassment because other well-respected Wikipedians did nothing more than post comments to your Talk page, this is ridiculous hyperbole, and your attempt to characterize such behavior as harassment has been totally ineffective. Indeed, your decision to start blanking other user pages in some sort of "tit for tat" fashion ended up getting you temporarily banned, a fate that you have attempted to impose upon other Wikipedians who you yourself have provoked.NetEsq

Frankly, that's nonsense. See my above comments. You ignore the actual content of the issue, and the actual situation, and focus on the series of edits...and not on the actual words in them. That's highly illogical. RK 21:28, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

<< freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. It includes the right to say "I don't want to talk to you". >>

I wholeheartedly agree. -- NetEsq 22:39, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

<< Despite the fact that I am angry with them, I will not harass them; unlike them I will not encourage other users to harass them by reverting their User-Talk pages, so that they lose total control of their own freedom of speech. >>

I think you are on the right track here. Kudos. -- NetEsq 22:39, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

<< [M]any people are afraid to speak their mind. Wikipedia is, unfortunately, no less immune to groupthink than others social groups. >>

I wholeheartedly agree. What I don't agree with are some of the tactics that you have employed in combating groupthink. I am particularly blown away by your tendency to call your adversaries "Nazis" and your frequent calls to have your adversaries banned from Wikipedia. The former borders on hate speech, and the latter is a sword that is typically used to split the baby. -- NetEsq 22:39, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

RK's summary of the events above suggests (not says, just suggests) that he didn't complain to the mailing list until Angela restored edits to his user talk page. That is not true; RK had already reported the original edits to his user talk page as "harassment" to the list. RK has a history of "crying wolf" in this way, which is why many users (such as myself) have a tendency to ignore all of his complaints -- thus also ignoring some perfectly valid complaints!

Toby is lying. I publicly stated these problems to the Wiki En list before Angela began harassing me. His bizarre claims that I am now claiming otherwise are totally false, and a complete fabrication. I am ashamed to see him stoop to this level. RK 14:32, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

RK's summary also says (not just suggests, but says) that he did "the same thing" to his harrassers' pages as they did to his. This is simply false. First, he edited their user pages, not their user talk pages. Worse, he blanked these pages before adding his own comments. Ironically, although RK often accuses others incorrectly of "vandalism", this was vandalism -- by him! It's no wonder that an administrator, not knowing how far this would go, blocked RK temporarily.

Again, a lie. I was very clear about what I did, and why. I even publicly announced each action on the WikiEn list so that there would be no confusion about it. Now Toby is twisting my words to make I appear as if I had said one thing, but done another. That's a total fabrication. Check the WikiEn archives. Toby's claims of my lying are total fabrications. RK 14:32, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

It is RK's pattern of deception and lying, as above, that makes so many Wikipedians disagree with him as a matter of course -- and made so many (albeit fewer) glad that he had left when he had. -- Toby Bartels 23:42, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bold words coming from a pathological liar. RK 14:32, Oct 10, 2003 (UTC)

RK, I will respond to the above since it appears that there may be a misunderstanding. In your response, you seem to agree with me (or at least not to disagree) about the facts that I stated -- what you reported to the mailing list, and when; which edits you made -- so the wikiEN-L archives will agree with us both there. What I was responding to (the "deception and lying", as I so indelicately put it) was the text that you wrote above on this page, in your conversation with Netesq. I am not claiming that you lied about these particular matters on the mailing list; indeed, I'm pretty sure that you didn't. I hope that this clears things up.

That said, I don't think that my comment really served much purpose here. People that wish to investigate the matter later on will look things up for themselves, and I'm sure that they will arrive at the right conclusion -- which, after all, I think is rather obvious to anybody. So I invite you, having read my response, to delete this entire exchange if you wish -- or to archive it somewhere as evidence against me, or whatever you feel is appropriate.

-- Toby Bartels 03:08, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No insults please

Robert, please don't write insulting things like Toby Bartels is a bald faced liar -- not even if he starts it! I saw your remark just now on Recent Changes, and it seems, at best, inflammatory. It's against Wikipedia's "no insults" policy.

It would be better to say that you disagree strongly with Toby Bartels. That would get everyone's attention just as readily. It would also have the advantage of not prejudicing anyone against you. --Uncle Ed 14:45, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Is it any wonder RK is so isolated and unpopular when he acts like this? So much for the hope that his temporary banning would make him realise that he is his own worst enemy. He is back, every bit as stubborn, paranoid and attacking as ever. The annoying thing is that this behaviour isn't coming from a trouble-making troll but a person who has contributed a lot of quality to wikipedia. He should be a wikipedia star performer. Instead he is regarded as a pain in the backside by most people and it is all his doing. And he will not listen to anything anyone else will say, will not take advice, etc. FearÉIREANN 18:27, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Nothing moderates like empathy, and the temporary ban that RK experienced has had a noticeable impact on the tactics that he employs. To wit, while I do not agree with RK's characterization of Toby Bartels as "a bald faced liar," this type of unfair accusation is a major de-escalation from the vulgarity (i.e., e.g., "fuck you") and hate speech (i.e., e.g., "Nazi" and "Nazipedia") that RK has thrown at his adversaries in the past. In other words, while hardly contrite, RK has mellowed considerably. -- NetEsq 21:55, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was judging on the basis of his comments about Toby. If you are correct and RK has learnt restraint I for one will be very glad. A mellower RK is something I would welcome. He is too good a user to lose permanently. If he is willing to work with people I for one with be delighted to work with him. I was despairing of him after his behaviour in the run up of the ban. But hope springs eternal and if Robert is willing to work with people constructively and not bawl obscenities and accusations at people then we owe it to Robert to work with him. On the basis of your analysis, I'm going to totally forget the past and treat Robert as a fair, constructive, objective contributor. Unless Robert acts otherwise (and I would hate for his sake to think that he will), we should all forget the past and build a constructive future. lol FearÉIREANN 22:23, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In evaluating RK's tactics, I think it is very important to keep in mind that RK seems to genuinely believe that all of the accusations that he makes against other Wikipedians are justified by the facts, whereas most objective observers consider the vast majority of RK's accusations outrageous and unwarranted. Also worth noting is the fact that RK is an easy target for subtle and insidious forms of harassment because many Wikipedians justifiably dismiss most of RK's accusations without investigating the facts. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. To wit, RK is easy to provoke, quick to accuse, and very eager to see the very worst in people who disagree with him, and I think that even the most patient, persistent, and sympathetic Wikipedians would agree with this evaluation. -- NetEsq 22:55, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's a superb summary. I have never doubted Robert's sincerity, just been driven to distraction by his frequently bizarre interpretations of other people's opinions, his interpretation of minor criticism as rascist attacks, etc. I have no doubt he has also been the genuine victim in some cases; EoT's behaviour was outrageous. The problem for Robert was that his OTT changes in the past led people to react simply by 'there he goes again' when he reacted to genuinely anti-semitic attacks, etc., they on the basis of past experience just presuming that it was just a typical RK over-reaction and not a justifiable complaint. It is like the old story of the boy who cried wolf and then wasn't believed when he finally told the truth. Except that in Robert's case, he I suspect genuinely believed his claims, even when objective observers all concluded his attacks were unfair, his interpretation of events distortions and his behaviour unacceptable. I only hope he is beginning to realise that 90% of the time his attacks were wrong, his interpretation of other people's motivations mistaken and his handling of problems counter-productive. And that he alienated people who were genuinely opposed to anti-semitism and indeed pro-Israel, people who would have been more than willing to rally to his defence when genuinely attacked by anti-semities but had because of past wild accusations given up on him. FearÉIREANN 23:53, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Consider some recent actions: I helped exposed a Christian Identity neo-Nazi (and his close friend who always support him)...and not a single person believed me, even after massive amounts of incontrovertible proof were given. Some people wrote me offline to tell me that they agreed with these statements...but none of these people were willing to agree with me on the WikiEn (Wiki-English) list. I am sad that people are so afraid of the Wikipedian group-think and smear campaign that they are unwilling to say certain things in public. Offline (i.e. in the real world), many people also agree with me on this issue. That is why they refuse to participate on Wikipedia. They think that I was nuts to participate here, because even in blatant cases of anti-semitism, the Wikipedia elite usually pretended otherwise, through self-deception, almost sterotypical pseudo-liberal stupidity, or by what we consider fairly clear examples of anti-Semitism. RK 23:37, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

I was told, by a few professional colleagues in Jewish education, that their evalution of contributor comments led them to believe that the hostility to Jewish issues was so great that it would be impossible to talk to most people on Wikipedia about this. They warned me that if I tried to discuss these issues openly, I would be attacked as paranoid or a liar. And to my sorrow I learned that they were correct. That is why I stopped participating here. RK 23:37, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

However, I am thinking about returning for a small number of articles, on topics that I already promised people that I would contribute to. I had previously prepared some material to add on the Zohar and the Chosen people articles, and I don't want to leave these topics unfinihed, missing what I see as some crucial points, and what others have pointed out are obvious gaps in the articles. RK 23:37, Oct 15, 2003 (UTC)

"I excercised my right to remove their comments from my Talk User page. All Wikipedia users have always had that right." [RK]

I'm not sure they do. After all, a fair number of people called for BuddhaInside to be banned for doing the same thing. There is no basic Wikipedia principle that I'm aware of which gives users any particular priveleges regarding their own user talk pages -- the precedent seems to suggest that all users' rights are equal in this area, just like in articles. At the very least, removing comments annoys people. Should Wikipedians have dominion over their own user talk pages? I'm not sure. I'm just saying that they don't at the moment. -- Tim Starling 00:59, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent insights you left on my talk page. I am truly inspired! Cheers, Jiang 01:10, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Jiang, stop your sarcasm. You wouldn't be that "inspired" if someone who hated you and your ethnic peers was constantly harassing you on your Talk page, and the rest of the Wikipedia community supported this harassment, and if they refused to allow you to edit your own pages. You find it even less "inspiring" if someone hateful like User:Angela started editing your own user:Talk page for you, pushing comments from other people, and preventing you from editing your own page! I find it disappoining - and telling - that you think such behaviour should not occur to you, but that it is Ok to happen to others. Well, it isn't Ok, and shame on you for promoting such horrific behaviour. RK 21:20, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

About the RK bashing

I don't fully understand why Wikipedia Jews write one thing to me in private, and say somethign else in public. But just maybe it is the fact they are afraid of the hateful way many people treat me, and they don't want to be treated this way either. The main problems, however, remain. Many Wikipedians on the WikiEn (Wiki English) list are allowing a proven pro-Nazi viewpoint to be pushed on Wikipedia from Stevertigo and his friend Martin; the documentation came from his own edits, and has been analyzed by experts on the subject. Yet the Nazis are the heros here? That's isn't NPOV, that is anti-Semitism. You can call it whatever you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

I am sad that people still pretend to be confused about the issue. Two people kept harassing me on my own User Talkpage. I excercised my right to remove their comments from my Talk User page. All Wikipedia users have always had that right. Yet then other Wikipedians such as Angela began harassing me; shockingly, they reverted my edits to my own page, and restored the harassment. When I reported this harassment to the Wiki list, no one helped, and in fact people slandered me. No one did anything to stop this harassment and vandalism; no asked for them to be banned. So I was literally left with no other option: I was forced to temporarilly do the same thing to them that they did to me. However, I also mentioned this action to the WikiEn list...I was making a very simple point: If it is wrong for someone to do this to you, then it is also wrong for you to do this to someone else. Obviously, that isn't vandalism. I never vandalized Wikipedia. I was very public about what I was doing - I was sending a temporary and clear message to those people who were harassing me. The fact that those people were encouraged to make futher harassment was unprecedented, and a said commentary on the hateful state of the pseudo-left-wing liberals on Wikipedia. This isn't freedom of speech; its mob psychology and harassment. And then to falsely accusing me of vandalism was just pathetic. RK 21:20, Oct 8, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder how much harassment I can put on someone else's page until I see someone remove it? Then I can do this again and again until you take action...and then you would be banned? Does this sound reasonable to you? Frankly, to me this course of action sounds like harassment, and its totally insane. Why you think that it was Ok for others to do to me, but not for this to be done to anyone else? Please do not continue with such behaviour. RK 00:48, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

<< I helped exposed a Christian Identity neo-Nazi (and his close friend who always support him)...and not a single person believed me, even after massive amounts of incontrovertible proof were given. >>

It seems self-evident to most disinterested third parties that you are too quick to attribute any and all hostility towards you as being "proof" of an overarching conspiracy of neo-Nazi anti-Semitism. On those occasions when I did investigate your claims of anti-Semitism, I came to the conclusion that you were way out of line. After investigating a few such claims, I came to the conclusion that you frequently see anti-Semitism where none exists. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that you are a frequent victim of anti-Semitism, a fortiori because you have made so many groundless accusations of anti-Semitism against so many well-respected Wikipedians. I am sure that you have heard the fable of the boy who cried wolf. NetEsq

I know. Even when you read pro-Nazi propaganda, you deny that it is anti-Semitic. But this doesn't prove that anti-Semitism doesn't exist here. It only proves that you are incredibly stupid and insensitive, or simply anti-Semitic yourself. I don't care which. But when you and your friends say that bald-faced Nazi propagaganda isn't anti-Semitic, then you and your friends are highly disturbed. RK 01:48, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

<< I was told, by a few professional colleagues in Jewish education, that their evalution of contributor comments led them to believe that the hostility to Jewish issues was so great that it would be impossible to talk to most people on Wikipedia about this. >>

Perhaps your professional colleagues in Jewish education realized that your personal temperament was not suited to Wikipedia. NetEsq

Please don't put words in their mouth. I highly doubt that they were lying to me; their own actions back up their words. They refuse to even come here, due to the anti-Jewish atmosphere.

Exactly who is putting words in whose mouth? Why not let your anonymous professional colleagues in Jewish education speak for themselves? -- NetEsq 03:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are many Jewish Wikipedians, and there is no shortage of zealous advocacy for Jewish issues on Wikipedia. NetEsq

There are a tiny number of assimilated Jews here. So? RK 01:48, Oct 16, 2003 (UTC)

So, as I said before, there is a general disdain among Wikipedians -- be they Jewish or Gentile -- for people who attempt to characterize any and all editing conflicts in which they are involved as part of an anti-Semitic Crusade or an anti-Semitic Jihad. Even more objectionable was your characterization of Wikipedia as "Nazipedia." Delete these portions of my comments again, if you are so inclined, but "every supppressed or expunged word reverberates throughout the world from side to side." -- NetEsq 03:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

<< Even when you read pro-Nazi propaganda, you deny that it is anti-Semitic. But this doesn't prove that anti-Semitism doesn't exist here. It only proves that you are incredibly stupid and insensitive, or simply anti-Semitic yourself. I don't care which. >>

By any and all objective measurements that I have encountered in my life, I can assure you that I am not "stupid," but perhaps I am insensitive to your highly subjective claims of anti-Semitism. Please direct my attention to a prominent example of the pro-Nazi propaganda that you claim is so commonplace here at Wikipedia, and I will do my best to examine it with an open mind. -- NetEsq 03:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It took you two weeks before abstinence got you? Shows that noone stays clear of the "Wikipedia-drug" :-). Welcome back. BL 01:46, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh good God! You'd think by now that Robert would have some inkling that he had handled things badly, had offended people who might share his political analysis but find his tone, attitude and attacks cringingly embarrassing, etc. But no. He comes back exactly the same as before, calls NetEsq, who has shown him more respect than most "incredibly stupid and insensitive, or simply anti-Semitic yourself". The reason people haven't come to support Robert in cases of genuine anti-semitism is because they are so fed up with his wild accusations in the past that they don't even bother to read his 'proof', if it exists; if something comes up on the wiki-list from Robert, they presume it is another paranoid dillusion and delete it unread, they avoid his pages like the plague, etc. They are simply worn out dealing with wild accusations and have tuned out to any allegations Robert makes. It has absolutely nothing to do with all being anti-semitism and everything to do with being fed up to the back teeth with Robert. If he has so little credibility anymore on wikipedia, it is not because of anti-semitism, simply anti-robertism. He has gone too far, too often.

As to the claim of rampant anti-semitism on Wikipedia, that is so absurd as to be mind-boggling. There is an extremely strong pro-jewish, pro-Israeli lobby on wikipedia. Lobbies are quite normal on things like this; pro-American, anti-American, pro-British, anti-British, right wing, left wing, pro-Catholic, anti-Catholic. Anyone who has followed edit patterns on pages linked to Israel can see it clearly. Edits not 100% supportive of Israel and Israeli policy are reverted with a speed that is sometimes awesome. And that is perfectly OK. Every lobby group has a right to push its agenda, though it can sometimes strike people who are neither pro-Israeli nor pro-Palestinian that the former lobby is far stronger than the latter, leading to NPOV concerns. (One edit I did led to three emails from leading wikipedians telling me the edit was "pro-Palestinian" and "anti-Israeli". The text I added was based on a briefing document supplied by the Israeli Foreign Ministry. A senior Israeli diplomat who is a friend of mine, to whom I faxed the edit to get his opinion, thought the comments by the wiki-emailers "paranoid" and "silly" saying if anything my edit was pro-Israeli, joking that he would welcome me as press officer for his embassy anytime!!!)

To categorise wikipedia as anti-semitic is as ludicrous as saying the pope is anti-catholic, George Bush is anti-american. Robert is his own worst enemy, as his attack on NetEsq shows. Everytime people offer him a hand to help him out of the hole he has dug for himself, he promptly clobbers the person offering the help over the head with his spade and calls them anti-semitic. And then he wonders why people stop coming to help him, or notice when some genuine anti-semites when no-one is looking anymore start tossing stones in on him, then accusing wikipedia of being 'nazipedia' for not coming to his aid. Weird. FearÉIREANN 20:27, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

RK, I dare say you will have some comments on this User:Adam Carr/Zionism. Feel free :) Adam 09:25, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you missed the page history of ecoterrorism? I've reverted to the long version and added what you wrote. Is it OK now? Evercat 21:37, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I had totally missed the history of ecoterrorism. After I made my edit, I figured out that the article was in fact not representative of what had been written before, and I was just about to restore it. I am glad you stepped in. RK

OK. I'm trying to work on the article towards NPOV - I think calling non-violent action "terrorism" is too strong. Maybe the article should only mention actual destructive, dangerous or threatening acts, and note that there is a contrast between these and non-violent acts...

The FBI's definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social goals". So ecoterrorism does seem to be a valid term. RK

Also, do you have an example of an ecoterrorist murder? The page you gave says no deaths due to ecoterrorism in the U.S. - is there an example abroad? Evercat 22:11, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So far there has been only two actual killings by ecoterrorists. (See the end of the second link, and th emiddle of the third link.) However, there was an attempt to mass-murder researchers by the so-called "Justice Department", which sent out letters to scientists... containing razor blades dipped in poison. Enclosed letters stated that the intent was to wound and kill. A few other extremist groups are now openly preaching arson and killing, and giving instructions on how to make molotov cocktails. RK 02:47, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

Eco-terrorism-A New Kind of Sabotage - National Conference of State Legislatures

Eco-Terrorism?

Acts of ecoterrorism testimony before Congress

ACTS OF ECOTERRORISM BY RADICAL ENVIROMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS. SECOND SESSION JUNE 9, 1998

Excerpt from the above website: Another group, espousing some sort of tie to Earth First!, spiked a tree. When the tree was milled at a now-defunct sawmill in Cloverdale, California, also in my congressional district, the spike actually killed a mill worker when the saw made contact with the spike.

OK, thanks. I entirely agree that some environmental activism can be seen as terrorism, but I think the page was overstating the case a bit.

I'm not sure about the motive for the killing of Fortuyn; my admittedly hasty research seems to show that while the killer was an animal rights activist, his motive remains unclear - though [2] states "he saw Fortuyn as a steadily increasing danger for vulnerable groups in society", which doesn't sound like an environmental motive.

As for the other site, it's very long - could you tell me exactly which "page" I should be looking at? Evercat 20:20, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

From ecoterrorism, where you write: (Reverting bald-faced lies and apologetics for mass murder. This article was not only a POV violation, it is hatespeech.)

From People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, where you write: (Stop trying to hide facts. This is an encyclopedia, not a whitewash machine. We need to add more information, not delete things to make you feel comfortable.)

This is still unacceptable. Stop accusing people of lying, when they may merely be misinformed. Assume good faith! Equally you may have been misinformed yourself. It's happened. Stop throwing wild accusations of "hatespeech" at the slightest provocation.

Stop accusing people of trying to hide facts or whitewash an article, merely because they differ with you over what is and is not relevant to an article. Assume good faith! Try discussing things, rather than attacking other contributors, who have just as much right to be here as you do.

Contribute in a civil manner, or do not contribute at all. Martin 20:09, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

By the by, feel free to delete my comments above once you've read them. You might also care to read Jimbo's message to the list, if you haven't already. Martin 20:51, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Robert,

I moved the Danny thing off of problem users. It was attracting too much attention there. Let's talk about the articles, not about people.

What specific changes do you want to make to anti-Semitism? What changes did you object to, and why? Please answer at talk:anti-Semitism --Uncle Ed 21:03, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)