The banned users "Mr. Natural Health", Simonides, and Raul654, along with Zero, have succeeded in banning me from Wikipedia for four months. They had absolutely no reason to do so, but they did it out of sheer hatred and malice.
I find their behaviour dishonest, shocking and unjustified. A few weeks ago Jimbo wrote and said that I am not going to be banned, and that I was just being hysterical. Yet Raul654 told me that Jimbo had authoried this ban. Someone was clearly lying, and I am sure that it was Raul who was not being honest.
Ironically, this uncalled for ban occurs on the heels of a long discussion, in which most of us recognized that several troublemakers were pushing away long-time Wikipedia contributors, and allowing trolls to run wild. Apparently, the clique who banned me is trying to make certain that the trolls run the asylum. Now Mr. Natural Health, Simonides and their sock-puppets can do huge amounts of damage yet again.
Consider the following seven facts. Has anyone EVER been banned from Wikipedia for such a huge amount of time in such cases? NEVER. Not once. There is clearly a lynch mob that hates me, lead by Mr. Natural Health and Simonides, two anti-Semites, one of whom even publicly admitted to being a Nazi. (Yet he wasn't banned for that, but I have been banned for complaining about their harassment.)
Facts about this case.
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?
Folks, this is a clear abuse of the system by a small group of people who hate me. And it won't go unnoticed by the trolls, or Wikipedia haters.
Ed Poor, you mentioned recently that you would be able to un-ban me if this small group blocked me. Your help would be of great assistance now!
Robert (RK)
*********
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jwrosenzweig.
The reason given is this: Banned for 4 months from Wikipedia in compliance with Remedy 1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK, as the case is now officially closed
You can email Jwrosenzweig or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Robert,
You claim "I am not involved in any flame wars."
But just today on [[Talk:Holocaust denial examined]] you made the following edit: ":::HistoryBuffEr, you are clearly makin anti-Semitic and ad homenim attacks towards Jay, and you are pushing a Nazi agenda. Your edits will be reverted. [[User:RK|RK]] 17:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)"
Now, you may be right. I don't follow the edits in this area, but still a personal attack. I would have banned you long ago, but played no role in the arbitration case. May I suggest you take what happened as a lesson and learn from it and when you come back take a lighter attitude and have some fun instead of the constant uproar.
Fred
From: Robert rkscience100@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 15:28:51 -0700 (PDT) To: Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com, wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Hateful ban shows that Wikipedia is flawed almost beyond hope
The banned users "Mr. Natural Health", Simonides, and Raul654, along with Zero, have succeeded in banning me from Wikipedia for four months. They had absolutely no reason to do so, but they did it out of sheer hatred and malice.
I find their behaviour dishonest, shocking and unjustified. A few weeks ago Jimbo wrote and said that I am not going to be banned, and that I was just being hysterical. Yet Raul654 told me that Jimbo had authoried this ban. Someone was clearly lying, and I am sure that it was Raul who was not being honest.
Ironically, this uncalled for ban occurs on the heels of a long discussion, in which most of us recognized that several troublemakers were pushing away long-time Wikipedia contributors, and allowing trolls to run wild. Apparently, the clique who banned me is trying to make certain that the trolls run the asylum. Now Mr. Natural Health, Simonides and their sock-puppets can do huge amounts of damage yet again.
Consider the following seven facts. Has anyone EVER been banned from Wikipedia for such a huge amount of time in such cases? NEVER. Not once. There is clearly a lynch mob that hates me, lead by Mr. Natural Health and Simonides, two anti-Semites, one of whom even publicly admitted to being a Nazi. (Yet he wasn't banned for that, but I have been banned for complaining about their harassment.)
Facts about this case.
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?
Folks, this is a clear abuse of the system by a small group of people who hate me. And it won't go unnoticed by the trolls, or Wikipedia haters.
Ed Poor, you mentioned recently that you would be able to un-ban me if this small group blocked me. Your help would be of great assistance now!
Robert (RK)
You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.
Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Jwrosenzweig.
The reason given is this: Banned for 4 months from Wikipedia in compliance with Remedy 1 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RK, as the case is now officially closed
You can email Jwrosenzweig or one of the other administrators to discuss the block.
Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
One comment :
1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time he is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.
Fortunately, this did not pass.
I do not think "required to do community service" is a good idea in a project which is only happening thanks to volunteer work.
"Suggested to bring his expertise on biological topics" is a much more positive approach.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
One comment :
1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time he is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.
Fortunately, this did not pass.
Yes, this was a bizarre suggestion. Perhaps the next suggested remedy will require financial donations in reparation, before restoring a long-time user's editing privileges. In combination with proposed measure 4, and the repeated lack of thoughtfulness towards the subject (not informing him of either the start of the arbitration case or its conclusion), this left an awfully sour taste in my mouth. Could one of the arbiters respond to sannse's question at the bottom of the talk page for the proposed decision?
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/RK/Proposed_...
+sj+
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
One comment :
1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time he is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.
Fortunately, this did not pass.
Yes, this was a bizarre suggestion. Perhaps the next suggested remedy will require financial donations in reparation, before restoring a long-time user's editing privileges.
Community service is a very valid remedy in the real world. Why not here? A better proposed remedy would have added community service as an option RK could choose instead of a total hard ban.
*That* is just the type of thing that would have been appropriate for (using your own words) somebody who obviously cares a great deal about the project.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems start to look like nails. The ArbCom needs more tools.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:54:50 -0700 (PDT), Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
One comment :
1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time he is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.
Community service is a very valid remedy in the real world. Why not here? A better proposed remedy would have added community service as an option RK could choose instead of a total hard ban.
*That* is just the type of thing that would have been appropriate for (using your own words) somebody who obviously cares a great deal about the project.
I agree with this, and with extending an olive branch to users who are interested in regaining the community's goodwill. It was the tone of 'requiring' such a remedy, not the 'community service' bit, that got my goat.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems start to look like nails. The ArbCom needs more tools.
Like the ability to queue edits made by a given user/ip for review (only to non-Talk pages), rather than having them immediately made live, for a period of time...
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
One comment :
1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time he is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.
Fortunately, this did not pass.
Yes, this was a bizarre suggestion. Perhaps the next suggested remedy will require financial donations in reparation, before restoring a long-time user's editing privileges.
Community service is a very valid remedy in the real world. Why not here? A better proposed remedy would have added community service as an option RK could choose instead of a total hard ban.
*That* is just the type of thing that would have been appropriate for (using your own words) somebody who obviously cares a great deal about the project.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems start to look like nails. The ArbCom needs more tools.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I perfectly agree it might be a solution, and a good one for RK to show his good will. And I definitly support this kind of solution.
But this can only be an option endorsed by RK himself. Not forced on him.
There is a huge difference between real life and Wikipedia.
We chose to participate and be part of Wikipedia community. We can also choose not to. And that will be okay.
We did not choose to born, and in most places we have no choice but to be part of the civil society.
Thinking about it logically, community service does seem like a viable option. However, the way it was originally said to be applied was not.
If a person were willing to go through the whole arbitration process until ruling, I would say there is a good chance they actually do enjoy Wikipedia and may have some value to the greater good. Perhaps in the future ArbCom can be given the option of giving community service in exchange for a lighter sentence.
For example, given: User X is knowledgeable in an area where a minority of Wikipedians can make substantive contributions, and the user's only problem is that they tend to get hot under the collar, make personal attacks, or other anti-social behavior. If this user is willing to do community service in the area they do well in, then it can be seen as a sort of "good behavior" and the user's ban will reduced from 4 months to 1 month. If, after one month, the ArbCom can pass a straight vote on whether or not the user has satisfied their community service, the user's ban can be lifted. If not, the ArbCom can issue a statement as to why it has not been satisfied and another vote can be scheduled for the next month.
This way, a potentially valuable contributor to the community can show their good faith and think about what they can do in the future to curb their behavior by carrying out the community service while still participating in the community.
Obviously, this would not work for all users, but even if it is offered to all users, any user who is shown to have violated conditions of community service and the soft ban can have the offer revoked. It will be good for the community and good for the user if they comply. It would be something akin to parole. As soon as you violate parole, you are back in jail. Until then, you can be a productive member of society.
-Skyler1534
-----Original Message----- From: Anthere [mailto:anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2004 6:42 AM
Daniel Mayer a écrit:
--- Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:55:47 +0200, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com
wrote:
One comment :
1.1) RK is banned from editing Wikipedia for four months. In the time
he
is banned, he will be required to do 'community service' work on Wikibooks on topics exclusively related to biology.
Fortunately, this did not pass.
Yes, this was a bizarre suggestion. Perhaps the next suggested remedy will require financial donations in reparation, before restoring a long-time user's editing privileges.
Community service is a very valid remedy in the real world. Why not
here? A
better proposed remedy would have added community service as an option
RK could
choose instead of a total hard ban.
*That* is just the type of thing that would have been appropriate for
(using
your own words) somebody who obviously cares a great deal about the
project.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems start to
look
like nails. The ArbCom needs more tools.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
I perfectly agree it might be a solution, and a good one for RK to show his good will. And I definitly support this kind of solution.
But this can only be an option endorsed by RK himself. Not forced on him.
There is a huge difference between real life and Wikipedia.
We chose to participate and be part of Wikipedia community. We can also choose not to. And that will be okay.
We did not choose to born, and in most places we have no choice but to be part of the civil society.
The problem with this is that we generally don't punish anyone; we try to craft a remedy which prevents them from continuing the disruptive behavior at issue. Giving a "lighter sentence" would mean that rather than fully preventing the behavior they would continue to have an opportunity to keep on doing it.
Fred
From: "Patrick Aiden Hunt" skyler1534@comcast.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:49:56 -0400 To: "'English Wikipedia'" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] ArbCom Community Service
Perhaps in the future ArbCom can be given the option of giving community service in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Patrick Aiden Hunt a écrit:
Thinking about it logically, community service does seem like a viable option. However, the way it was originally said to be applied was not.
If a person were willing to go through the whole arbitration process until ruling, I would say there is a good chance they actually do enjoy Wikipedia and may have some value to the greater good. Perhaps in the future ArbCom can be given the option of giving community service in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Errrr. I think you are making a mistake on a point Patrick. Those who go through the whole arbitration process are not necessarily willing... I would even dare saying they usually are not.
They just do not have any choice.
For all other points about reducing sentence through good behavior (community work showing efforts), I absolutely agree with you.
Well, they do have the choice of just leaving Wikipedia... which is how I saw numerous decisions ended... that's what I was referring to...
-Skyler
-----Original Message----- From: Anthere [mailto:anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:46 PM
Patrick Aiden Hunt a écrit:
Thinking about it logically, community service does seem like a viable option. However, the way it was originally said to be applied was not.
If a person were willing to go through the whole arbitration process until ruling, I would say there is a good chance they actually do
enjoy
Wikipedia and may have some value to the greater good. Perhaps in the future ArbCom can be given the option of giving community service in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Errrr. I think you are making a mistake on a point Patrick. Those who go through the whole arbitration process are not necessarily willing... I would even dare saying they usually are not.
They just do not have any choice.
For all other points about reducing sentence through good behavior (community work showing efforts), I absolutely agree with you.
Indeed.
Just currently thinking of the huge number of hours I spent on the 168 case.
How sad.
Ant
Patrick Aiden Hunt a écrit:
Well, they do have the choice of just leaving Wikipedia... which is how I saw numerous decisions ended... that's what I was referring to...
-Skyler
-----Original Message----- From: Anthere [mailto:anthere9@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, October 17, 2004 7:46 PM
Patrick Aiden Hunt a écrit:
Thinking about it logically, community service does seem like a viable option. However, the way it was originally said to be applied was not.
If a person were willing to go through the whole arbitration process until ruling, I would say there is a good chance they actually do
enjoy
Wikipedia and may have some value to the greater good. Perhaps in the future ArbCom can be given the option of giving community service in exchange for a lighter sentence.
Errrr. I think you are making a mistake on a point Patrick. Those who go through the whole arbitration process are not necessarily willing... I would even dare saying they usually are not.
They just do not have any choice.
For all other points about reducing sentence through good behavior (community work showing efforts), I absolutely agree with you.
Robert wrote:
A few weeks ago Jimbo wrote and said that I am not going to be banned, and that I was just being hysterical. Yet Raul654 told me that Jimbo had authoried this ban. Someone was clearly lying, and I am sure that it was Raul who was not being honest.
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:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/030743.html
You expressed a concern *nearly a month ago* that you might be banned "any moment now, for absolutely no reason at all". This was not true then, and it is not what happened. You were banned after the rather excruciatingly long due process that we give to such things around here.
2. It is true in some sense that I "authorized this ban", since I have delegated decision making to the ArbCom in cases of this sort. They are instructed to follow the rules of Wikipedia in deciding such things, and I'm confident in this case that they have done so.
--Jimbo