[WikiEN-l] Re: Is there a secret ban against RK?

Tue Feb 15 19:35:05 UTC 2005

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 