User talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKdia

See User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism, User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKology, User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKs_big_lie for my interaction with Robert Kaiser (RK), and Wikipedia:Community_case:RK for everyone else's.

Here is Martin's experience with "clean paper trail" strategy. I ask, why repeat it?

See Arcadia for the name: RKdia is the paradise that will exist when I am banned and all of RK's problems go away, because I am a troublemaker, hate speecher, harasser, and all round general Nazi (I'll be Rommel please).

Here's Jimbo falling for propaganda techniques. Notably, onus reversal and moral equivalence:

Hey, I asked you to lay off of RK, and you agreed. But since then, you have called him names ("liar, libeller, whining child") and generally escalated the situation in a number of ways. This must stop. You will be banned if you don't drop it.

If there are no new lies, and no new libel, I have nothing more to say. I don't agree that calling these things what they are is escalation. I already did agree that "whining", although accurate, is the standard process around here that apparntly one must live with, and also that "child" is a matter of judgement. So I can stop using "whining child" but RK is, provably, a liar, and provably, a libeller, and I stand and fall by both of those judgements. EofT

So, Jim, make a choice. I agreed on the assumption you would deal with this. But I don't see it. You must decide either to support liars and libellers, and let them spread their lies and libel everywhere, or ban them. If you ban me, well, you are telling everyone else that lies and libel must be left to stand until you deal with it, even if it takes weeks. Is that what you are actually asking? If so, well, you didn't say that before. If you're saying it now, say it clearly. I think *someone* had to do what I did. If *no one* called his behaviour what it is, then, there would be no process invoked at all. Evidently no one has called it what it is for some years now, as he's been around for a while doing this "stuff", whatever we can agree to call it.EofT

I advise you: don't insult him, don't talk about him at all, don't visit the pages that he visits, don't agitate to have him banned, because your own poor behavior actually makes that less likely the more you act this way. You're in the wrong here, and I don't intend to put up with it.

I never did "agitate to have him banned". It was the last option left when he was permitted to continue making up facts, throwing around labels, etc. It's actually sad for him that you did not deal with him earlier. He even said, several times, that it's him or me. So, set a time, Jim, and make a choice. I feel less unkind towards him for demanding a credibility duel, than I do to you for just not making the choice he demands you make.

As for containing this, I archived all trash by or about him in separate files you can see above. This too I am going to move. When he posted new falsehoods, and re-used his labels, which do *NOT* unlike mine satisfy the legal definitions, I corrected them, including two on his [[User_talk:]] page. I don't think I insulted him in doing so, other than to point out the fact that some statements were lies, and that repeating them was libel. I stand by those assessments, and I will stand by them in court, if it comes to that. Be careful whom you publish. Or "punish".

But if you are saying you will take over all these responsibilities and clean up his mess, no one is more pleased than me. I *DO* want you to make a decision about who is in the wrong, and it is immaterial to me whether you make the right or wrong decision. It is not *me* who will deal with future RKs and situations like these which will arise when all RKs you encourage by banning me flood in. That is of course your decision. Do what you want.EofT

"Don't visit the pages that he visits"? Even ones like Talk:Noam Chomsky where he has raised none of his usual issues? Do you really intend to simply cede all pages he visits to his POV? That's interesting. And stupid. But who cares? By and large he is not sabotaging articles. So fine. For now.

Let me explain this part again, because it seems to have not sunk in: leave a clean paper trail means -- make sure that your own behavior is unimpeachable. When you call him names, *you* are violating the rules of Wikipedia, and so it is *you* I must threaten with a ban. It simply clouds the issue. Jimbo Wales 14:14, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't consider "liar" or "libeller" to be "names", but rather, a provable status with proper legal definitions that RK meets fully. If you wish me not to say these things *again*, or add to them matters of judgement ("child" etc.) fine. But they stand as my assessment. EofT

That said, since you may get me out of this loop by either banning me, or, by getting me to agree to stand off and let him lie and libel until someone else has the balls to call it what it is, to make it obvious this is him not me at issue, then I prefer the latter for mere convenience's sake. But at this point, it's really not that important to me whether you ban me or not. I don't care to participate in any forum where liars and libellers are coddled, nor the only process in place to deal with them, continually sabotaged and undermined. I think User:MyRedDice has done a heroic job on this, both in general and on this "case", and that it's him who deserves the kudos. EofT

I don't know why I bother, but I'll make just one more attempt to rescue you from being banned before Jimbo lets the ax fall.

Don't bother. First, as 142, I am already "banned" as you strangely put it. Odd "ban" that is so ineffective. You should really call it "shun:" as I said. Second, to be "rescued" one must actually care about one's "plight". I don't. Let Jim do as RK demands: let the ax fall on one or the other. Third, you do not seem to understand that it is actually illegal to publish libel without giving those libelled the chance to respond. Being "banned" establishes that there is no such chance, thus, it opens Wikipedia to libel suits. This too is Jim's choice.

You seem to be "out to get" RK. That's how you got labeled a troublemaker. If you will just stick to writing articles and stop picking on RK, you can stay at Wikipedia.

You have fallen for common propaganda techniques employed by RK. For one thing, he was the one to "pick on" or "pick out" me - see User_talk:EntmootsOfTrolls/RKism: he simply picked the wrong target, one that could respond in ways that illustrate what he is, and that does not care if this results in his own removal, however permanent or temporary. For another thing, to write any article on certain subjects is to encounter RK. So this is his choice not mine. Let him stay away from me. Third, if the label as "a troublemaker" matters, then Wikipedia does not, since it is not 'status as a troublemaker' but 'quality of edits' that actually matters in a real encyclopedia. And, fourth, Wikipedia is not a place, so one does not "stay".

You don't want to tangle with Jimbo. He's nowhere near as tolerant as I am, and once he makes up his mind it's Very Difficult to get him to change it. "A word to the wise is sufficient". This sounds like your last chance. Please don't blow it. --Uncle Ed 16:57, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't want him to change it. I want him to execute his decision, whatever it is: to either ban RK, whose behaviour needs no further explication or documentation, or to delete this account, so that others can see what kind of behaviour is tolerated, and hat is not. As RK said it's an either/or now. If This ultimatum of RK's is rejected, well, then, what is the alternative? No sane person is going to persist to say "hey this is libel" 80 times a day as RK repeats his lies. They're going to either disappear, or sue the Wikipedia if this crap ever gets attached to a real person's name (you better pray it does not, and not just because of me, but because there's a lot of laws about that).

Read what Martin said. Why should anyone put up with this in silence?