Lainaus Daniel Mayer <maveric149(a)yahoo.com>om>:
I'm at wits end with RK.
I think that sums up my view as well. I cannot see how anyone could construct a
productive avenue of pursuing a disagreement with him.
Just check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Gaia_philosophy&action=histo…
Note RK's edit summaries (first is reverting me, second is reverting Cimon
avaro, and third is reverting Anthere):
Just to re-emphasize; as Anthere has pointed out, the summaries are in reverse
chronological order, the one referring to Anthere is previous to the original
temporary banning.
RK (Reverting violation of standard Wikipedia
protocol. Please stop the
personal attacks, and stop attacking statements I NEVER MADE. Take the time
to READ the actual comments.)
I think the positive side of this is that this summary is not in itself a
personal attack, but refers to Wikipedia protocol and standards of decency. I do
note however that his suggestion to "Take the time to READ the actual
comments."
Is not useful, in my opinion, since to me it appeared that it was RK who refused
to confront explanations proffered as to why his excising text en masse was
unacceptable.
RK (Cimon, please stop your mass reversions, your
lies about my own
statements, and stop attacking things I have never said. You need to get some
sort of control over your anger.)
Well, this is directed towards me, and in truth the advice to keep control of my
anger was well taken at that point.
and
RK (Reverting Anthere;'s POV violations, again. This is the English
Wikipedia, and not Anthere's personal wish list of she wishes English
speakers would use this term. Please ban that vandal. Seriously.)
So according to RK, my restoration of a great deal of text was a violation of
Wikipedia protocol and I attacked him. I did no such thing (I did mention
that /he/ was the one doing the attacking though). Also according to RK Cimo
avaro is a liar and has an anger management problem. Sorry, but I just don't
see that.
Well I do have an anger management problem in that I have to keep doing it when
discussing edits with RK.
What I /do/ see is RK going ballistic on a daily basis
on a number
of articles. Finally according to RK Anthere writes POV text and is a vandal.
That is an outrageous assertion.
I hate to say it, but I think RK is more of a hindrance to our effort than
his
edits are worth.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I very much fear that the extent to which RK is able to mend his ways is very
limited. Having been temporarily banned once, a greater attempt to not raise the
hackles of other contributors would no doubt have rehabilitated him in short
order. I think he either genuinely cannot control himself, or is cynically
trying to keep one skate below the off-side line, beleiving that only certain
specific epithets which he was previously fond of, are over to the off-side
zone. That said, it is colourable that I and mav may have in frustration engaged
(with ample provocation) in rhetorical devices which could be (with ill will)
construed as taunts in an effort to make him see how unreasonable his posture was.
I think that at a minimum, a final warning should be issued to him from a person
who has the authority. To the degree that RK may not be able learn how to work
constructively and collegially, I agree with mavs last comment above, and have
said so before. Frankly I am not optimistic about his ability to mend his ways,
but would not oppose giving him a final last chance.
Respectfully:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)