Rk, I regret to tell you, but this is entirely true. I put the link on
your talk page.
I understand quite well the origin of the confusion.
The arbitration decision was taken on the 14th.
Robert was immediately blocked, without any information of the AC
decision. There was no notification, and no time for him to organise his
page and talk pages.
I was contacted by RK when this occurred.
I proposed to give him 24 hours to set his things proper, which he refused.
I also mentionned on the ml I thought hardly polite not to notify a user
the decision of the AC when he is banned.
After I complained, RK was finally notified (on the 15th) of the AC
decision, but unfortunately, he was only notified of the 4 months ban.
Nothing more. Part of the decision was not offered.
Later (on the 16th), RK was notified of the banning decision in more
details. Here, the second part of the ban was explained, but I suppose
RK only read the first arbitration decision and was already gone on the
16th.
I think we should not hold against someone, the fact of not knowing a
decision, when it is notified in such a disastrous manner.
Sorry to be blunt here.
Anthere
PS : Robert, now that you know, please respect this decision.
Robert a écrit:
I have been back on Wikipedia for two days, and
already two
people are trying to throw me off again. RickK has tried,
and now Zero has just written me:
You are violating the AC ruling that "RK is
banned from
editing articles directly or indirectly related to
Judaism for one year". You had better stop before
someone starts applying the prescribed penalties.
What the hell is Zero talking about? I have never heard of
any such ban. Are there secret bans now, bans made without
informing the person being banned?!
I do not know any people working on the Judaism articles
who are asking for such a thing. In fact, I have worked
quite well with dozens of other people on dozens of
Judaism-related articles, even people who have points of
view that are quite the opposite of my own.
This includes working both on the Wikipedia, and private
conversations in e-mail with others to work disagreements
out - and such conversations have always ended up being
successful. (Isn't that part of our goal?) Is someone
trying to deny this, and present it as if the opposite were
true?
It seems that my self-perceived enemies are out to create
serious arguments where they do not actually exist.
Shouldn't people deal with the real flamewars that require
real intervention?
In any case, a point of policy: If admins are creating
secret bans without informing the person being banned, then
they are obviously guilty of not following their own rules,
and are also guilty of trying to entrap users. This kind
of action should automatically make any such secret
decisions null and void, and is grounds for someone asking
for disciplinary action against them.
Frankly, after working so hard in good faith I expected
better behaviour from others here.
I shall continue editing in good faith on all sorts of
articles, in accord with all Wikipedia policy, just like
anyone else, unless I find out that there is some sort of
secret ban. In that case, a whole new can of worms will be
opened. I am seriously distressed that I have have to
initiate a Request for Comment on the actions on Admins.
But given recent news, it appears that a number of Admins
think that Wikipedia rules do not apply to them, and that
concerns me.
And it should concern you as well.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com