[WikiEN-l] RK - various

Thu Oct 2 19:26:06 UTC 2003

Angela wrote:

>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.
>
OK, I had my fact wrong in this issue.

>*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. 
>
Obviously, if there is no such person. it can't be made to work

>*Bjn 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.
>
There are people who can't handle any criticism..  I'm sure we've all 
chased some away.  They just go away without a fuss, and without anybody 
knowing about it.  This does not diminish RK's intimidating effects.

>*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?
>
I would define a simple vandal as one who for no particular reason 
defaces a page with rude words or goatse.cx type images.

>*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.
>
I generally don't visit the other sites; the mailing list alone provides 
me with more than enough of this type of discussion., but then this 
isn't the first time that RK has been discussed on the mailing list.

Based on the comments in his departure letter, RK may not want to come 
back.  In that case the entire discussion about banning him is moot.

Ec

>