Anthere is entirely right about RK's notification -- I botched it badly, and have apologized about four times, but I'll do it again if necessary. No sanctions should apply to RK for any editing of Judaism-related articles prior to his having been informed upon his return. However, RK, I hope you will consider calming your rhetoric about the allegedly unusual punishment levied against you. Theresa has given you excellent advice which I hope you will take. If you don't want to appeal to the AC, talk to Jimbo -- if he feels you were unfairly treated (which I think you implied in your comment about an email you received from him), surely he has the right (some would say the responsibility) to reverse the decision. Either way, I am sure that both the AC and Jimbo would appreciate your handling the matter as calmly as possible -- I certainly wasn't "out to get you" when I voted on the arbitration decision against you, and I doubt other arbitrators were either. If we truly erred in our decision, I have faith it will be remedied. Regarding the recent brouhaha over the photos, what I'll say is this. If Wikipedia decides as a community it will display explicit photos of sexual acts, then I won't stop editing, but I'm afraid I'll have to stop recommending it to most of the people I currently recommend it to (normally families with bright teenage children, given my work in a high school). You can call me, my friends, and my acquaintances all the names you like (compare us to Nazis, if Godwin will let you), but those are the cold hard facts. And I have to be honest: I will probably not choose to introduce my students to Wikipedia with a class project (as I had hoped to do) if the photos are displayed inline. Too many questions to have to answer to administrators (real-life school ones) about. Again, you can call us censorious or narrow-minded or anything you like, but as long as I want to call myself employed, I'll have to live that way. I don't know if you think Wikipedia will lose much by my ceasing to advocate it to every man, woman, and child I talk to. I'll let you decide for yourself: certainly I don't think it's much of a threat in strictly numerical terms (it won't affect Wikipedia's pocketbook or editor population by more than a few hundred bucks or a few editors either direction)! But it's the reality of the situation, and I think all the talk about browsers, etc. (frankly, I think 90%+ of our reader population either doesn't know how to shut off photos or considers it too great a hassle for WP to be worthwhile, but that's unsubstantiated guesswork) ignores the truth of the situation. Noble principles are fine and all that, but even the most remarkably open free speech laws recognize that there are some kinds of speech not suitable to all occasions. Now go ahead and yell at me -- if you want ammo, I use IE and subscribe to Christian moral and ethical principles. I'm sure someone can make use of those against me. :-) All my best to all of you, who keep my inbox full and my brain moving. I wish you good fortune this cold February, James W. Rosenzweig jwrosenzweig(a)yahoo.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com