On Wikipedia user:RK, rather compiled and commented evidence of inappropriate and "intolerable" behaviour and complaints against him. This page and all subpages should be protected in case anyone tries to wipe them. -- Stevertigo
For information, I put these on my watch list (the RC of this place is messy these days). I strongly support keeping this trail and putting the dust under the carpet as some suggest. If these pages are blanked, I'll restore and protect them.
So far, this is one incident. If people want to collect evidence with a "clean paper trail", then this is exactly what they need to collect. But I see no reason to collect it here, where it serves as a current and permanent attack on RK. By all rights, if the collected evidence is presented on this page, then RK should have an opportunity to respond; at the same time, that would clutter what should be a clean collection of evidence. Rather, the evidence should be collected privately until it becomes a large, clean mass (if that ever happens), and then presented to Jimmy Wales. At that time, you could bring the process out in the open -- so that you're not going to Jimmy behind his back -- and post the complete, damning body of evidence. But there's no need to post the piecemeal accumulation; RK will interpret every individual addition to this page as a further personal attack, and that won't help matters. (I'm not concerned here with how this page would be intended, or whether RK deserves to be personally insulted. Those are not relevant.) -- Toby Bartels 07:40, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I am afraid that I am unconvinced by your proposal. I see a number of ways in which it could badly backfire on me personally, and the community in general.
- I would prefer to proceed slowly and carefully, as I am doing. Discretion, they tell me, is the better part of valour.
- I welcome a response by RK, explaining his motives. I will add a space for it.
- Thanks for your advice. --MyRedDice
- Toby, your suggestion is noted. But what might the purpose of making a page like this be? Ill tell you -- to allow cooperative editing of material related to [this] subject. Its the concept of the WikiWiki. To say "do this in email only" kind of implies yet another attempt to limit what wikiwiki means. The practical argument -- "lets be nice, lets all get along, the community is what is important, arguing only hurts the community etc." would be fine if it were consistently applied. The Prime Minister himself was concerned that this page might be too unilateral, and insisted that RK maintain his 'right to blank' these pages. He thought that this page, even here on the meta was a kind of "kangaroo court" against RK.
- To the contrary, this is not a court, this is merely the prosecutors filing offices, where interested people can compile evidence to demonstrate a consistent pattern of abuse by RK. The notion that attempts like these be broken up into piecemeal cases and examples, can only be seen as an attempt to derail any community sanctions, and is precisely the kind of special treatment that leads some to feel a double standard is being applied. The derailment as best I can figure out, is likely just an attempt to keep things simple--to keep the project rolling, rather than to sanction RK and potentially express a "bias."
- Regardless of the biases expressed by the opposite kid-glove treatment, the issue is not bias, rather it is to sanction a user for his/her behaviour. The issue of bias is only a smokescreen -- one that is easy made worse by kicking up the dust of similar biases. The issue here is to sanction a user, and to do so methodically. To say 'this is not the place for it,' is just another way of saying "I want this to end up at the dead letter office," and this appeal to ignorance/avoidance of the issue cannot be taken seriously if we are to believe our own recollections of RKs actions, and our human sense of those events and their outcomes. -Stevertigo 05:54, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- One more thing. RK accused me of being mentally ill in a mailing list post. This serves as a current and permanent attack - more permanent than this page, as it cannot be refactored or deleted. Should he also follow your advice?
- Were RK to follow your advice, my concerns about his behaviour would instantly evaporate, and this page would be rather quickly queued up for deletion. Perhaps you could suggest it to him? --MyRedDice
- He said I was mentally disturbed. Does that means the same than mentally ill ?
- I admit I was difficult and aggressive to him. I apology to him about that.
But I did not lie, I did not insult, I did not call him vandal nor troll, I did not call for a ban; I even supported not banning him. But just as Martin, I see the permanence of his insults to me, in ML and in article history. And I see he refused to me the gracefullness of rephrasing his comments as he had promised to do. This is to me a sign of a lack of willingness from him, when he could if he desired, solve many issues with his opponents, with a rephrasal, an apology, a nice gesture. Whatever. Something that would help saying we are both sorry and will try to be better later on. But, no.
I will not put anything anymore. If one day, someone convince Jimbo that this is a bad behavior, hurting the group dynamics, some references are available dug deep in my personal pages. ant
- Replies to Martin and SV by email. (I used Meta:Special:Emailuser; please let me know if it didn't go through.) -- Toby Bartels 13:18, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Earth to Steve, Earth to Steve. Come in, Steve!
Please go easy on RK. He flies off the handle, but basically he's a good guy. Instead of trying to "run him out of town", let's try to "talk him down". --Ed Poor
Why do you say, "Earth to Steve!" Are you implying Im not well grounded, or that Im otherwise out of touch? With that out of the way-- I dont know what you are talking about "taking it easy" -- this page is simply a document. Stevertigo 21:28, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)