I note with some astonishment that out of the nine Sysops originally set up to "judge" me, only four ever made it to the point of voting to ban me.
Four out of nine is enough for a ban? Despite the following seven facts? I guess it is enough for a ban, in a dictatorship.
1* I am not involved in any flame wars. So why the ban?
2* I am not involved in any revert wars or edit wars. So why the ban?
3* The supposed problems are in articles in which the articles HAVE ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, long ago! So why the ban?
4* I repeatedly take week-long (or longer) Wiki-breaks (like the last 10 days) to let things cool down and allow other people to have their say without any problem. So why the ban?
5* I have taken many contentious articles OFF of my Watchlist, and simply let others do what they want, rather then engage in multiple arguments. So why the ban?
6* I have asked for and successfully used mediation when necessary. So why the ban?
7* I have been successfully working with a large group of others on potentially acrimonious articles, without revert wars, and with great progress being made on many articles. So why the ban?
To be fair, Fred Bauder claims that objecting to anti-Semitic hatespeech is grounds for a ban, and counts as being in a flame war. That's not rational or fair, but Fred says it is Wikipedia policy and that he would vote for a ban. So I fully expect all the people who similarly condemned HistoryBuffEr to be banned by tommorow, right?
If not, it is just more evidence that four people hate me, out of over ten thousand Wikipedia contributors.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail