This is really sick. Not only were bans supposedly made against me by four people (out of nine admins, originally), but they were kept secret. No one told me. This is, by definition, entrapment.
Obviously, we have an out of control system in which two people with an axe to grind can get someone banned for a year. Worse, they did so on th every articles on which I and others have the most success CO-OPERATING. Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.
It was an outside user who does NOT edit on these articles, Simonides, who was trying to get me banned for personal reasons. He also tried to get others banned as well, and gummed up a number of people in RFCs for months.
So someome is trying to ban me from editing articles, whilst in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. There is not a single example of this happening to anyone else, period.
To put it bluntly, they are making up rules to apply to a single person that have never been applied to anyone else in the same situation. That is not Wikipedia policy; that is a gross violation of Admin authority, it is a personal attack, and has no legitimacy.
My record of practical cooperation with others on the various Judaism articles is just as good as anyone else, and this attempt by Simonides and his friends and sockpuppets to ban me is being done out of spite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism
If someone persists in threatening me with this "ban", then I will have no choice but to report this gross violation of Admin authority as a personal attack, and issue a RFC against such people.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 12:17:47 -0800 (PST), Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com wrote:
This is really sick. Not only were bans supposedly made against me by four people (out of nine admins, originally), but they were kept secret. No one told me. This is, by definition, entrapment.
Obviously, we have an out of control system in which two people with an axe to grind can get someone banned for a year. Worse, they did so on th every articles on which I and others have the most success CO-OPERATING. Josiah, JayJG, JFWolff and I have very different ideas about Judaism, yet we obviously have been able to work on these Judaism articles.
It was an outside user who does NOT edit on these articles, Simonides, who was trying to get me banned for personal reasons. He also tried to get others banned as well, and gummed up a number of people in RFCs for months.
So someome is trying to ban me from editing articles, whilst in full compliance with Wikipedia policy. There is not a single example of this happening to anyone else, period.
To put it bluntly, they are making up rules to apply to a single person that have never been applied to anyone else in the same situation. That is not Wikipedia policy; that is a gross violation of Admin authority, it is a personal attack, and has no legitimacy.
My record of practical cooperation with others on the various Judaism articles is just as good as anyone else, and this attempt by Simonides and his friends and sockpuppets to ban me is being done out of spite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism
If someone persists in threatening me with this "ban", then I will have no choice but to report this gross violation of Admin authority as a personal attack, and issue a RFC against such people.
Robert (RK)
An Arbcom ruling is binding. Any admin who tries to enforce an arbcom ruling is not violating admin authority. I am not familiar with you case Robert, but _if_ the ruling was unfair then i would advise you to appeal. Drop a note on the requests for arbitration page explaining the circumstances, and why you think the descision was unfair and I for one will take a look.
Theresa
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Theresa Knott wrote:
An Arbcom ruling is binding. Any admin who tries to enforce an arbcom ruling is not violating admin authority. I am not familiar with you case Robert, but _if_ the ruling was unfair then i would advise you to appeal. Drop a note on the requests for arbitration page explaining the circumstances, and why you think the descision was unfair and I for one will take a look.
Theresa
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if RK is blocked, how is he going to do that?
TBSDY
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:40:00 +1100, csherlock@ljh.com.au csherlock@ljh.com.au wrote:
Theresa Knott wrote:
An Arbcom ruling is binding. Any admin who tries to enforce an arbcom ruling is not violating admin authority. I am not familiar with you case Robert, but _if_ the ruling was unfair then i would advise you to appeal. Drop a note on the requests for arbitration page explaining the circumstances, and why you think the descision was unfair and I for one will take a look.
Theresa
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if RK is blocked, how is he going to do that?
TBSDY
He isn't blocked. His three month block has come to an end. It's his ban on editing jewish related articles that he feels is unfair.
Theresa
csherlock@ljh.com.au (csherlock@ljh.com.au) [050216 08:40]:
Theresa Knott wrote:
An Arbcom ruling is binding. Any admin who tries to enforce an arbcom ruling is not violating admin authority. I am not familiar with you case Robert, but _if_ the ruling was unfair then i would advise you to appeal. Drop a note on the requests for arbitration page explaining the circumstances, and why you think the descision was unfair and I for one will take a look.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if RK is blocked, how is he going to do that?
RK isn't blocked - but if he were, [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy]] notes that people blocked from editing can email an ArbCom member to file an appeal. (Probably best to check which ones are active at the time.)
- d.