Ed Poor writes:
Perhaps I was less than clear. My offer to un-ban you was CONDITIONAL on your seeking out my advice and following it. My promise was (and still is):
- No one who seeks out my help and follows my
advice ever comes to harm. I have had no messages from you, either in private
e-mail,
the Wikipedia mailing list, or the Wikipedia website. I can't help someone who refuses to communicate.
Just to clarify, I thought that I had communicated with you, on various occasions, on this very list, and I thought that I in fact did what you suggested.
As per advice, I got out of edit and revert wars. I repeatedly took Wiki-breaks to let things cool down. I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist. I have asked for and successfully used mediation .
As for a personal e-mail to you alone, I want you to know that I did try to contact you privately, but I could not. That is why I used the Wiki-En list.
Jimbo writes:
Robert, I'm astounded to see you twist the facts in this way. 1. First, I never said that you would not be banned. Please refer to my actual words:
Jimbo, I never twisted any facts. I simply misunderstood you. I'm sorry about that, but this is no reason to get angry at me!
In any case, only four of the seven self-appointed arbitrators voted for this ban. Worse, they did so retroactively on long past events, which seems to be a violation of your instructions and Wikipedia policy. Consider the following:
1* I removed myself from most articles with revert wars or edit wars, and let others do most of the editing in such cases.
2* I repeatedly took week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks to let things cool down.
3* I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want.
4* I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary.
5* I have shown that I can successfully working with a large group of others on potentially acrimonious articles, without revert wars, and with great progress being made on many articles.
Jimbo, under such circumstances, when has a Wikipedia user been given more than a week-long ban?
To the best of my knowledge, no-one has received more than a week-long ban under such circumstances. As such, isn't it clear that this penalty is the end-result of a grudge, rather than a fair and impartial process?
Ambi (Rebecca) writes:
What I am suggesting is that he does also have some reason to be incensed, for the reasons that Sj mentioned. There are many other users who have caused as much trouble as RK, but just haven't been around as long. Many of those users also lack the history of positive contributions, and some do not appear to give a damn about the project. Many of these are also, as he says, skilful at manipulating the rules. Yet, once they get to the ArbCom stage, it'll take a couple of months for them to be even put on probation.
Thank you for pointing this out. Over the last few months many of us here wrote that Wikipedia adminstrators repeatedly allow attacks and edit wars on a constant basis. It seems clear that some people pick-and-choose based on personal grudges who they will ban, and for how long. This is not how Wikipedia worked under Jimbo Wale's and Larry Sanger's leadership, or how it worked when the first admis started a while back. In practice, banning people has often become a matter of personal animosity and politics.
The result of any process is never valid when it is not applied fairly and consistently. That is considered a matter of law in the US and most liberal democracies nations. In fact, in most liberal democracies verdicts are routinely overturned in such situations.
Robert (RK)
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com