Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive68

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Nishidani

User requesting enforcement

Broccoli (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

[17]

Diffs

of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. [18] Commenting on I/P related topic
2. [19] Commenting on I/P related topic
3. [20] Commenting on I/P related topic

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Not applicable.

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

block

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nishidani violated his topic ban, and it is not first time already. Please enforse the sunctions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff link

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statement by Nishidani

Okay. Despite my desire to ignore this, after this edit, which rehashes Cptnono's point, and which was quickly elided and replaced by this below, the plaintiff Broccoli appears to insinuate, by the rhetorical device of a mischievous query without basis in what Roland wrote, that Roland is charging Mr Wales with a '"racially-motivated abuse" towards Peter Cohen. Since Roland spoke on my behalf, I feel obliged to reciprocate the courtesy. Roland, like Peter, and myself, is alluding to a very complex history of interactions with Einsteindonut, who in 2008 questioned Peter's ethnicity, and went on to smear him, as did the JIDF organization, and DA, whom most presume on good grounds to be Einsteindonut's lumpenavatar. Roland's words are directed to this, not to Mr Wales.

As a matter of curiosity, you have made 1200 edits in nearly 3 years. We have, I believe, never edited the same pages. Never crossed paths. Why this sudden focus on three remarks made, among hundreds by dozens of editors, which I happened to make in defence of a Jewish editor's integrity and reputation on wikipedia, one a rather humorously ironic joust at a person who caused immense disruption, and outside of wikipedia, would have deserved stronger language?

When I said I would defend Peter even if in doing so, I was 'risking' an extension of my I/P ban, I was not referring to the Arbcom decision. I was referring to the fact that, from experience, I am tracked and trailed from edit to edit, and 'dobbed in' or 'grassed' if there is even the slightest possibility my words might well be maliciously twisted so that they could seem to allude, by any stretch of the imagination, to Israel and Palestine. I.e. I knew that in defending a Jewish person, there was the strong likelihood that someone out there who enjoys pettifogging might slip into that faulty syllogism which runs:'Ah, Nishidani spoke about (on behalf of) Jews. Israel is Jewish, (at least 80% of it). Arbcom ruled he cannot touch anything regarding Israel. Anything Jewish is Israeli, ergo, gotcha!'. This is the way Cptono thinks, and you repeat it.

If the Arbcom decision effectively marries this antic proposal, then I can't defend the Peter Cohens or Rolands of Wikipedia against the kind of smears, often about their ethnicity, they are frequently subject to. The source of this operation (the smearing of Peter Cohen) was a one-man American agitprop operation, that smears Jews. I thought long and hard before intervening in that DA thread because I took to heart the wise caution last month directed my way by Malik Shabazz. Mr Wales, as I see it, stepped into a very complex story without knowing the background, and I thought it my duty to speak up in those terms whatever the consequences, in the mind of those who lurk for fishing opportunities to run to the cops, precisely because many editors are unfamiliar with the details.

For the record, though subject over the years, as my archives show, to repeated attacks calling me all names from anti-Semite to Jew-basher to Israel-hater, I have never once referred those editors to Arbcom. I think this tells something on behalf of my bona fides, whatever the specious diffs of my shortlist of sanctions may appear to suggest. I can understand why appeal for sanctions is sometimes required in order to remove obstinate POV-warriors and make editing easier, but I don't personally subscribe to it, because esp. in the I/P area all recourse to wikilaw, rather than patient discussion, lends itself to manipulation and gaming. In fact the I/P area cannot be edited seriously because it optimizes rallying the numbers to determine content, warring and temptations to use administrative fiats to out editors. Being banned from it, objectively, was a relief, though it saddens me to see that nothing has changed. Tutto qua.Nishidani (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest. I am related to Cohens, though I have never met Peter. The fact he is a Cohen no doubt plays a minor role in my motivation to see he gets the respect that is his due, but it's generally a matter of being brought up among postwar refugees from Nazism and Stalinism, and learning the lesson very early that even a small mental twitch of ethnic unease, or discrimination of any variety, class or cultural, in someone must set one on guard.Nishidani (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani

• The second diff does not work. The other two do not relate to editing in the IP area, but to defending an editor facing apparently racially-motivated abuse. This complaint is without foundation. RolandR (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Except for a reference to Masada2000's S.H.I.T. List ("Self-Hating and/or Israel-Threatening"), I don't see anything that could be interpreted as related to Israel or Palestine. Agree with Roland that there's no basis for this complaint. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The timestamp of the second diff seems to indicate this edit is the one being referred to. The relevant sanction says, and I quote directly, "He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." If the sanction was intended to ensure that the individual refrain from even discussing matters at ANI, which all three links are to, then perhaps enforcement is justified. Having said that, I am not myself convinced that it is necessarily a good idea to sanction someone for discussing a community ban, which seems to be what all three posts related to. I believe it would send a very bad message to the community. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if the sanction did preclude Nishidani from commenting on ANI community ban Discussions (and I don't believe it does), his edits referred to above would not be covered. They have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, and everything to do with defending a Jewish editor from racially-motivated hostility. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, user:Mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for this edit. The edit was made on AE, and had absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict area. Not to block user:Nishidani for a much worse topic ban violation would be unjustifiable. Broccoli (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you understand that Mbz1 was commenting about an anti-Israel image? How do Nishidani's comments relate to Israel or Palestine? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this even being debated? "...or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." Since the ANI revolves around Jewish Internet Defense Force it is of course related to the I-P area. He should not be commenting at all and just stay away. He even knows it and said: I think it worth while risking an extension of my I/P permaban to say this.[21] He said a good thing about a guy. That is commendable but he knew what he was asking for. When people start skirting their bans (no matter how trivial it might seem) it causes frustration and therefore disruption. This is similar to restricted editors reverting vandalism. The principle is nice but they just need to stop. No extreme restriction is needed but something is certainly justified.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53 He was in breach then but the reporting was stale. This is at least the second time (are there any others?). Something needs to be done to ensure that there is an understanding that editing within the topic area is not acceptable. The enforcement process is meaningless ff he can continue to knowingly thumb his nose at it. There doesn't need to be blood. Just a clear message that will hopefully result in it not happening again. If he has no concerns at extending his permaban (that was pretty funny) then maybe other actions are necessary.Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I've already expressed my gratitude to Nishidani for his posts in defence of my actions. For those baying for blood, I should like to point out that some time has passed and that any blocks should be deemed necessary to protect Wikpedia not simply punitive. Oh and can someone do something about
  talk) 00:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• At the beginning of this year, I discussed the way the way the West Bank - Judea and Samaria sanctions worked with an editor who was a member of the ArbCom at the time they were imposed. My understanding is that restricted editors may edit pages which touch peripherally on the Arab-Israeli conflict so long as they don't edit or add parts which specifically refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict to those pages and so long as their contributions aren't disruptive. Otherwise, as one of the Wikipedia editors mentioned on the JIDF's hit list, I think that it is entirely proper that Nishidani participated in a case concerned with whether the leader of the organisation should be allowed to participate on the Wikipedia project.     ←   ZScarpia   00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nishidani's comments appear to be technically in breach to me (although I allow room for the fact that some see them as not being in breach). I think, though, that it would be detrimental to the workings of Wikipedia to censure non-disruptive one-off contributions to ANI discussions. --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Nishidani was defending Peter Cohen, who was under a lot of stress trying to deal with a bad situation, and it wouldn't make sense to have yet another Wikipedian fall victim to that situation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm mildly curious to hear how Broccoli thinks blocking Nishidani would help Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not that adding another concuring opinion is going to be overly helpful here, but I agree. This seems baseless. Are there any counter measures out there for frivolous submission to AE? NickCT (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that AE should be enforced fairly or should not be enforced at all.

RolandR and others, please do not make a victim out of user:Peter cohen and a hero out of user: Nishidani

Peter cohen was warned by Jimbo for the first time, and for the second time. Nishidani's

topic ban violation was addressed directly to User:Jimbo Wales

"Mr Wales...". Are you saying that User:Jimbo Wales was

the one who made "racially-motivated abuse" towards user:Peter cohen?--Broccoli (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC

Are you going to stop using someone else's user name as your sig?--

talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I will treat that question with the respect that it deserves. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the arbitration case directly concern the Arab-Israeli conflict? Did Nishidani comment on the Arab-Israeli conflict? Was Nishidani being disruptive?     ←   ZScarpia   19:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether Nishidani's comments were a violation, they were pretty much on the borderline. In situations such as this, some discretion is allowable, and given that Nishidani wasn't being disruptive, I don't think a block would achieve anything. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, re your prior edit, I think it would do a world of good all round. A bock is just what the doctor calls for in these situations :)Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be a borderline case, but important for WP credibility and fairness for 'boderline' cases to be handled with less tolearnce it seems. Mbz1 was blocked on much less than this as shown above. This would seem like a clear double-standard if nothing is done here. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nishi's comments were in a thread unrelated to the topic area. Cptnono says it was about the article on the "JIDF", a "Jewish internet defense" group that oddly attacks Jews on the internet. The thread was not about the article on the JIDF and anybody who read the thread would not say that it was. But Nishi needs a forceful reminder that this place is not good enough for him. A block for editing in an area that he is not restricted from would give such a reminder. nableezy - 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• When I asked how the restriction applied to Nishidani and other editors would work, I was told that they may edit articles which touch on the Arab-Israeli conflict (that is, articles that have a scope which goes beyond the A-I conflict) so long as they don't edit the parts of those articles which specifically refer to the A-I conflict. They may also edit the talkpages of those articles so long as they avoid discussing anything related directly to the A-I conflict. Presumably, the same applies to ANI cases. I would say that it's fairly obvious that the JIDF and David Appletree are topics which are not solely concerned with the A-I conflict. Clearly Nishidani didn't address the A-I conflict in his comments. Therefore, judging by what I was told about how the restriction was intended to be applied, Nishidani has not breached it. Other editors subject to the same restriction have been allowed to edit pages whose content is as, or more, related to the A-I conflict as the ANI cases under consideration. Some editors here have commented that they are worried that double standards may be applied, mentioning Mbz1's case. In fact, if Nishidani is subjected to a further sanction, then, as Nishidani has done no more than some other editors subject to the same restriction, a double standard will then have been applied.     ←   ZScarpia   01:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course i see double standards here. mbz1 was blocked when she asked to remove I/P related cartoon [22]. Nishidani was not blocked, when he added I/P related cartoon [23].--58.8.110.113 (talk) 06:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see scintillating scotoma when I have an acephalgic migraine. The patterns seem very clear but they aren't really there.
The block log says 12:52, 6 June 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs) blocked Mbz1 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: Third violation of Israeli/Arab conflict topic ban, at [24] and User talk:Breein1007).
Nishidani's block log looks like this so you seeing patterns that aren't there based on invalid assumptions about cause and effect. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. read properly, that block log refers to, over my entire history, two blocks in 2007, when I began to edit, for violating 3RR, the first because I didn't understand the way reverts were counted, the second because two people tagteaming, and later banned, kept eliding 3 impeccably reliable sources on one page. The rest were blocks due to administrative error, and overturned almost immediately by community requests to administrators. This was, in the good old days, enough evidence to get one permabanned. So be it, but attempts to compare my exiguous record for violations over some 17,000 edits with habitual evaders of blocks, by people who have a long record for disruption, are offensive, particularly if registered by low performers or IP blowins.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The complaint looks like pure harassment to me. The terms of the restriction on Nishidani are clear and Nishidani did not violate them. He did not edit an article or comment on a talk page attached to the article and he did not participate in "a discussion substantially concerned with such articles". It seems to me that "Broccoli" wants to broaden the 15 month old editing restriction, but the time is long past for that. In fact, it's probably time to lift the indefinite restriction on N's editing. N is not a vandal who is likely to repeat his vandalism - he simply wants to introduce a different view into IP articles -- one that is supported by RSs, even though it is not the majority view. Allowing these minority views (if supported by RSs of course) is completely consistent with WP policy and improves article quality. Banning contributors indefinitely and seeking to broaden the bans after the fact, ultimately degrades Wikipedia content and drives away open minded contributors. KeptSouth (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec withe below)

Sorry KS, my remarks were phrased in a way that they lent themselves to an interpretation suggesting I 'want' to do something with I/P articles. I was referring to the history of my work in that area, so the proper thing would be to paraphrase that I 'wanted' (to see to it that the 2 active Palestinian editors, as opposed to the several hundred Israeli/Jewish editors in that area, had some assistance from the outside to ensure

WP:NPOV was respected). I saw it as an egregious example of systemic bias, for which there was no technical remedy. Therefore no plea to be allowed back, since I have no vocation for martyrdom. The point was, that these episodes of relentless indictment, stalking and harassment, not for any serious disruption (like sockpuppetry etc), but simply to drive people out of wikipedia by a cavilling instrumental focus on niceties of law, that make rather reasonable editors look bad when admins look at the sheer number of denunciations registered on logs, ought eventually to be addressed. They won't be of course. I suppose now that this off-the-cuff reflection can be used against me. I don't care, at this point.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Regardless of whether you want to contribute to IP articles again, you should be free to do so. My point is that this request for "enforcement" is baseless, and banning your from Wikipedia would be way over the top.KeptSouth (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Without wishing to add to the drama, it seems a little cowardly to hide away from this, now I've spotted it. I'm I-P topic banned too, and also commented at ANI, and on Peter's talk page, opposing the attempt by a community-banned user, multiple sockpuppeteer and owner of a website with militaristic stylings that tries to name, out and intimidate WP editors - Jewish and others - to smooth his way to editing here. That individual is also on record as making grossly Islamophobic statements, through that website and on his Twitter account (after his attempt was rebuffed, he them forged an anti-semitic rant that was purported to be from the blocking admin, and posted it on the web. He is now rampaging across WP using multiple IDs, saying “that’s what we wanted”). I can't for the life of me see where there's a breach of any arbitration ruling in raising a voice against that prospect, and in offering some brief support to an editor who felt threatened by that person. None of Nishidani's comments - or mine - were about the I-P conflict, or on or even about pages or topics related to it. This was not a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles", to quote the restriction directly. Arguably, this one is though. Whoops. Anyway, even if a weakly plausible connection can just about be made through five degrees of separation, as also noted, what benefit would there be to whatever action it is that is actually being requested? N-HH talk/edits 15:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps: actually, I'm not sure it's fair to Nishidani to say he represented minority views on I-P issues. And, specifically on the topic ban, like me, he got hit for "edit warring" for requesting the standard international terminology of "West Bank" in WP articles on the conflict, and for making a total of about, oh five reverts over several months on that point. Although like him, I am glad to be free from the madhouse. N-HH talk/edits 15:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Worse than that, 8, not five reverts, in two months.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "minority view on Wikipedia" - anything that the JPost or the Likud party would not agree with can be the minority view on I-P and terrorism related Wikipedia articles. Just look at how many times these POV pushers edit certain articles, and how often these self same people file ANIs, vandalism charges, etc. against editors they view as their opponents. They are clearly the majority and they usually get their way.

By the way, I support N's right to edit whatever he wants, including the Palestine Israel articles. The small number of reverts over one year ago do not justify an indefinite topic ban. It is a disproportionate punishment for what was largely a misunderstanding on his part. This enforcement action seems to be requesting a total ban because N discussed something about a Jew on a page that was not off limits to him. It is absurd. If such rules were to be applied universally on WP, we would all be banned indefinitely. This case should be closed, and the indef topic ban on N should be lifted as part of the review of this case.KeptSouth (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. This case has nothing to do with challenging the Arbcom decision, or some putative right, no one else has, uniquely for me, to enjoy a state of exception to an Arbcom deliberation. That is history as is much of my work. It is simply a technical question of whether I infringed the articles of that sanction. I don't believe I did. mI believe the Arbcom decision was within the rights of the arbitrators, though I do not agree with it. But as Socrates taught the Western world in the Crito, if you live within a democratic system, you must respect its laws, and not whinge. He could have escaped, but he preferred to dutifully take his poison. Minor lights do well to bear that in mind. I appreciate your position, of course, but this is no place to challenge a verdict, however incomprehensible, that affected many people, not only me.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started to post this this morning but I thought surely I was misunderstanding something about this request, so I refrained until reading the comment from KeptSouth. As an outside observer, the logic of this request escapes me.

1. Nishidani "is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict (West Bank - Judea and Samaria), commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles."

2. The ANI discussion was about the problem of multiple sockpuppets edit-warring at the Jewish Internet Defense Force article.

3. The particular discussion in which Nishidani participated was about whether to community-ban Einsteindonut.

Would someone please draw the line from "any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles ((West Bank - Judea and Samaria)" and a discussion about sockpuppets at Jewish Internet Defense Force? It seems like an awfully liberal interpretation to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Tom. I am permabanned for the I/P area, if you read the appropriate sections down the page at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. I may touch nothing in the I/P area, and, as Malik reminds me, be very careful not to stray into grey zones.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw well, WTF then. There's a lot I don't understand about Wikipedia policy, including how a "permaban" is not permanent, apparently. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So do you really really understand this time? This is at least twice now. Admins should have some balls and show you a block to at least gie the impression that there is some integrity left. But if you pinky swear on it they might let you walk again. Seriousley, just email other users like everyone else probably does instead of commenting yourself next time. This AE is annoying but you editing in the topic area is even worse since you are banned.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can explain, Cptnono, since Broccoli seems unwilling or unable to respond. How do Nishidani's comments relate to Israel or Palestine? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained. The article Jewish Internet Defense Force was part of the discussion at ANI even though it delved into off article discussion as well. The article touches on the conflict even if it isn't tagged as such on the talk page. But since we are stretching so hard, it could also be argued that he shouldn't be discussing anywhere that could even be broadly construed as related. There is no doubt that the I-P conflict was part of that discussion. And he even admitted to it in his edit when he made the remark that basically said screw you to his sanction. Again: "I think it worth while risking an extension of my I/P permaban to say this." He knew making a comment was at the very best questionable if not completely unnecessary and enforceable. He is not welcome in the topic area and now we have yet another long AE since he snubbed the rules. If he would have stayed away this wouldn't have happened. So if he doesn't get it it needs to be made clear. If he does get it then he needs to show it by not coming back. If this was the first time it would not be a big deal. It is the second. Enough is enough. Does AE matter or not? If not, I will certainly have a good time telling people what I think.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin once told me that AE frowns upon wikilawyering. Any defense to this request is splitting so many hairs that I don;t see how it can be called anything less. So yes or no admins? Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can of course wikilawyer your way out of something and around a ban, but random editors with an agenda can also wikilawyer your contributions into a banned area, and clog up notice boards with complaints about it. Anyone with an open mind can see what's disruptive, time-wasting and of no constructive purpose. I'm also utterly baffled by Wgfinley's contribution to the "Result" section. N-HH talk/edits 07:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono, with reference to the JIDF article, you say: "The article touches on the conflict". Also: "It could also be argued that he shouldn't be discussing anywhere that could even be broadly construed as related." Nishidani's restriction means that he cannot write about the I-P conflict anywhere. However, so long as he doesn't write about the conflict, he is not banned from participating when the subject is broader (that is, merely touches) than the I-P conflict. If you doubt that, contact one of the arbitrators who imposed the restriction.     ←   ZScarpia   08:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley Could you do me the courtesy of explaining what is 'damning' about that diff? Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

You wrote the word "Israeli". Isn't that damning enough? RolandR (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, guv.:) Not at least in the 'first diff' Wgfinley defines as 'damning' evidence of my violating the I/P ban.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but you did, in passing, when you explained what SHIT stood for. That is in the first diff cited against you, and clear evidence of criminal intent. I missed it first time round as well. N-HH talk/edits 11:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! And there I was thinking I was a close reader. All I saw was a fine editor's name listed in or as 'SHIT'. No excuses then. I did violate the ban, the JIDF is vindicated, all the boys who worked on this can thank Broccolo for defending Wikipedia against a violent 'disruptive' agitator, and as I join, I suppose, Peter Cohen and, I presume, presently, perhaps the best I/P editor we have, Nableezy, in the afterwikilife, watch on as the insulted and injured, to use Dostoievsky's term, are welcomed with open arms, even if they have long records for sockpuppetry, disruption, POV editing, and whatever. Just goes to show. When you see someone who has publicly painted you out to be an antisemitic ranter full of anti-Israeli bias (no diff has ever been adduced to show the slightest evidence for either of these absurd charges), and smeared a Jew as not being Jewish, you have no right of redress on wikipedia, not even a cautious quip, nor any right to remonstrate on behalf of a good man's personal dignity, especially after the boss steps in to chide the latter for his exasperation. Okay, die Lage ist verzweifelt, aber nicht ernst, as they use to say in the coffee shops of Vienna in Karl Kraus 's day, let the Kahanist tribalbutients take up their barcaloungers and tune into wiki, to edit away on behalf of its high aims. If you wish to achieve 'closure', Finley then hang on a tic while I finish one or two edits I have been asked help out with. Shouldn't take more than a day or two, and they have nothing to do with the provocative defence of personal dignity that seems to be my problem with administration here.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that settles it then. Nishidani understands it and has even added some punch to his comments. So will there be repercussions or can he violate his ban yet again? "Broccolo" doesn't need anyone's thanks and I am sure Nableezy appreciates Nishidani's support.Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comment in question also includes a suggestion, at the very end, that the comment might risk an extension of the I-P ban. Nishidani does tend to be - dare I say it, and it's no bad thing - unduly cautious on this point. Or, one might say, prescient, given the phrasing used is (my emphasis) "risking an extension", and given that someone opened this complaint. I also remain confused by what "he brought it him himself with the Jewish references" means, or what that might have to do with I-P bans; or why a link to one of Nishidani's comments is referred to as "one of my own clear comment". Or in what way it constitutes a "result". But that's just nitpicking. As is the observation, for the sake of correctness, that in fact the ban covers the Arab-Israeli conflict, not just the Palestinian-Israeli area. ArbCom quietly changed that without telling or asking anyone, after the original decision had been handed down. Not that it makes a difference to the issue here. N-HH talk/edits 10:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@WGFinley Assuming the clause of the sanction relevent to the 1st diff would be "or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.", but there [25] Nishidani is commenting on offsite "wikistalking" of another user, not article content or anything directly related to such; also the topic ban isn't from "Jewish topics". Then re your diff, Nish's sanction does not preclude him from discussing the banned topics on user talk pages. Misarxist (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was blocked 3 times for so called ban violation. First time I was blocked for this revert in Rothschild family article that has nothing to do with I/P conflict, as my revert did not. Second time I was blocked for this comment made on AE that had nothing to do with any article at all. The third time I was blocked for this comment at sandstein's talk page. Once again the comment had nothing to do with the article. No, I do not think that wikipedia will be better off without Nishidani, and I enjoy his knowledge of literature, but he did violate his topic ban at least 3 times I know of, and a day or two of block will help him to make a better judgment next time. BTW User:N-HH also violated his topic ban by making comment at that request. I provided my own history for learning purposes only. I see here few new administrators. I believe it will make them good to see what could be considered a topic ban violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think sometimes there needs to be a consideration of what benefit a punitive block brings. Looking at the pro-Israel editors, there are some who never get into trouble with admins. Then there are the likes of yourself, JayJG, Shuki etc. who do get into trouble at times through being outspoken or insistent or whatever but who also contribute stuff including featured content. Then there are the likes of David Appletree who operate sock-puppet armies, run mailing lists etc. in which they encourage meatpuppets to join in their disruption, have a website where they launch attacks on lots of Wikipedians, issue tweets indicating that they are considering coming over to London (where I happen to live) and do something against the rules (tweets listed on my talk page) etc. issue other tweets implying that they are planning a campaign to infiltrate Wikipedia and who have never made any effort to contribute anything to the project. If Nishidani had interfered in the occasional dispute I might have with you or Shuki, then I think sanctions would be appropriate. That is because you two are bona fide Wikipedians who may not be perfect but who contribute with the intention of improving the encyclopedia even when you are advancing political staff I disagree with. Appletree has never contributed in good faith and his presence on Wikipedia is totally negative. He exploits all policies simply to try and keep the article on his organisation as distorted as possible in his favour. He bombards OTRS, Jimbo and Arbcom with petty complaints in the hope of causing trouble for his critics. (Knowing him, he'll probably complain about this post.) And some of the people who receive his complaints leap into judgment without exploring the history. As a result we have lost

talk) 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

This request has absolutely nothing to do with David Appletree. This request has nothing to do with me. I'm hardly involved in editing I/P conflict articles, and I have never been involved with those very much. User:Scott MacDonald is a very fine man, and I told him so in a message I left on his talk page today, and this request has nothing to do with him either.I am sorry you cut back your contributions, but this request has nothing to do with you either. This request is about Nishidani, who violated his topic ban for the third time I know of. I was blocked, when I asked to remove hate propaganda, Nazi motive image from a user page. I was blocked for 72 hours for that! Did I do something wrong? Well Sandstein believed I violated my topic ban, and I accepted the punishment, and I would have done the same thing over and over again, even knowing for sure I am going to get blocked. Why? Because the only thing that matters to me is knowing that I have done the right thing. The same with Nishidani. He believes he has done the right thing, yet by doing so he violated his topic ban for the third time. Period. BTW his first and second topic ban violation were not nearly as "noble" as some claiming his third one was. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admire all those who have detailed blueprints or memories of my behaviour. I can't even research adequately to find out diffs for things I otherwise remember. This whole episode is one of making a mountain out of a molehill. If I gave the impression I thought I was doing something 'noble' instead of just being decent, when a good productive editor was hauled over the coals by an authoritative voice in here, well that's unfortunate. You're making out I am somehow on a par with those numerous sockpuppets, persistent disturbers of the peace, militant POV warriors and the myrmidons of the general 'let's give'em hell' hugger-mugger. I acted in Peter's interest, and in wikipedia's general interest, in my view, in those three short edits, one a simple wry quip about DA not being DA but a Shabbos goy. Where's your sense of humour? This place, unless it is not careful, will straitlace itself into stasis step by step, unless it makes a clear operative distinction between editors who are consistently and disruptively POV-warring, and editors who drop a quip, or make a rare point concerned with the functionality and integrity of the encyclopedia. I appreciate you haven't voted either way, but merely commented. We have only interacted once, on Nableezy's page. I watch that page, which suffers from vexatious, systematic and repeated messages that, overtly or between the lines, are provocations intended to stir a reaction that might get the page's namesake hauled before administration. I don't count you among those who do this there. But when I saw this, I 'mirrored' it immediately. The message was, don't provoke other editors with offensive caricatures, or you will get as good as you give, since anyone can play that game. A comic nudge. It was a topic-ban violation, read strictly, I suppose. I don't think this is being 'disruptive'. I think any mature adult should understand, if they are seriously committed to this project, that one can game, tie-up in endless litigation other editors' time if they get fixated on the letter of the law, and not its spirit. The protocols of wiki are to facilitate the building of NPOV content, ensure on-article disruption is minimalized. They are not there to be jerryrigged for combative outing of 'adversaries'. I haven't, I repeat, ever taken anyone to arbitration in 4 years. I have consistently maintained a dialogue on talk pages with people who, from the word 'go' I was 95% certain, from stylistic considerations, were sockpuppets (taken seriously for several months by administrators, such as Tundrabuggy, NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey. I dislike, finally, this latest repetition of a pattern I discerned long ago, reoccurring in this case. An editor far out of left-field whom one has never heard of, suddenly appears with a well-formatted denunciation complaining of some putative rule infraction of the protocols governing the I/P area, and then disappears, leaving it to the usual line up to argue the point. It's obvious what is going on behind the scenes, but nowhere near good form. Not punishable, but that style of 'denunciation' should be treated very warily. People who do that are not acting in the interests of the encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many words that do not matter, too many abuse of

WP:NOTTHEM, a few conspiracy theories especially for one, who was not going to comment here at all. I will not respond everything, just about memories. Somebody, who commented here linked to this case. So it has nothing to do with my memory, I had no idea about that AE. I simply read the current AE.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. While thinking over my reply to EdJohnson, a train of thought led me to check Mr Wales' wiki profile, and I noted he was an

Objectivist. This in turn made me think of a structural problem in wiki evidence in arbitration, which emerges if you are familiar with the brilliant Michael Polanyi

's classics Personal Knowledge and The Tacit Dimension. That is why I'm taking a long time to reply to a simple request. I keep wandering through larger issues, the meta-context, . . . Perhaps I should just retire, sanction or not, and simply publish an essay on it.

Anyhow. Come now, there is no need for exasperation. As a gesture of good will, I see on your page you are an admirer of Vladimir Vysotsky. Here’s a peace offering. I think the lines in his Так дымно

Минутный порыв говорить - пропал, -

И лучше мне молча допить бокал...

Allude to Boris Pasternak’s poem Hamlet generally, but specifically to

Если только можно, Aвва Oтче,

Чашу эту мимо пронеси.

Take it as a 'piece' offering, since you appear to think I was behaving as execrably as Evelyn Waugh with that wartime ration of bananas.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

The first diff appears to be damning to me. The Arb decision states he's not allowed to even comment on community pages about such topics. On its face it's on topic as he brought it himself with the Jewish references. When looking into this I found one of my own [26], clear comment on another user's talk page about Jewish Defense Force. --

Further to my comment in the above section, I still don't consider a block necessary in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances I would agree with you Phil but his ban is on a specific arb case that states (emphasis mine):

7) Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely. He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.

"Such articles" is defined earlier on as P-I conflict articles. Pretty clear to me he is not to be involved in P-I conflict articles or discussion of such articles. The first diff seems to clearly violate that. Or is your interpretation that's not "community discussion"? Seems to me it is given all the discussion. I think he's violated his ban, at best it's

talk) 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I think Nishidani's comments were borderline, and given that he wasn't being disruptive, I don't think a block would achieve anything. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will agree. --

talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 174.112.83.21

User requesting enforcement

Dailycare (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

174.112.83.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated

Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs

of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. diff removal of sourced content, without explanation
2. diff Removal of sourced content after discontinuing contributing on the talkpage
3. diff Again
4. diff Explicit refusal to co-operate and also refusal to provide sources he/she has invoked e.g. here and here.
5. diff On another talkpage, IP is again withholding what his/her "objections" are and a user is asking for them
6. diff Another one
7. diff IP perhaps responds to the two preceding ones

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

1. diff Warning by
   talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
   )
2. diff Warning by Dailycare (talk · contribs)

Enforcement action requested (

other sanction

)

Topic ban/block (what's appropriate for an IP?)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This IP has been acting tendentiously in more than one article by opposing edits without articulating reasons for doing so (see diffs mentioned above) and removing sourced, even multiply sourced, material. For example in the Gilo article IP has continued (after discontinuing offering any input on Talk) removing a mention that Gilo is in East Jerusalem, despite the fact that in Talk, seven sources (BBC, New York Times, LA Times, Le Monde, The Guardian, the British Foreign Office and Jerusalem Post) had been presented saying this. IP also failed to provide articulated reasons why "East Jerusalem" shouldn't be in the article, except this but continued to remove the text from the article. IP has been cautioned against inappropriate behaviour e.g. here.

As an additional point, the editing history of this IP looks a bit interesting with very sporadic (and apparently minor) edits in 2009 followed by a surge of activity, in Israeli-Palestine articles, beginning August 13, 2010.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning 174.112.83.21

Statement by 174.112.83.21

Comments by others about the request concerning 174.112.83.21

Comments by Supreme Deliciousness

I believe that 174.112.83.21 is in fact user

Comments such as this:

A user asks: "What makes Israel a developed country?" "I think the proper term to describe it is developing." [27]

Breeins/174.112.83.21 response: "hahahahahahahahahaha says the guy from jordan. is this meant to be a joke?" and then ads it again: [28]

They both have the same uncivil behavior: IP "wtf are you talking about" Breein: "What the hell are you talking about in your edit summary?"

See for example this where the IP makes a comment and Breein continues the discussion: [29]

Breein has made posts in hebrew:[30] IP also makes posts in hebrew: [31]

I also have personal information that links Breein to this IP.

Breein was notified of Arbcom in 18 november 2009 [32]

I previously filed an enforcement for the things he had done, several of the admins wanted to act on it but for some reason it became stale and it was archived without being closed: [33]

The fact that he is now continuing the same edit warring and uncivil behavior as an IP instead of his main account is something that should be stopped. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked

User:Breein1007

's past edits.

I didnt' find many matches. Both accounts worked on

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

.

There are behaviorial similarities in edit summaries. Breein liked using the word "stop" in his edit summaries (e.g. "stop censoring things plz","therefore stop harassing me","please stop deleting sourced info"). 174.112.83.21 appears to do the same (e.g. "what part of stop reverting egypt did you not understand","kindly stop violating wikipedia policies immediately", "it is unfactual. stop putting lies".)

I think there is moderate circumstantial evidence suggesting these users could be the same, but I'm not convinced. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I also have personal information that links Breein to this IP that I havent revealed here, that information together with the behavior is clear that its him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there seem to be two issues here: whether the IP is Breein and then the behaviour of the IP itself. This request concerns the behaviour issue, so unless SPI investigation pre-empts arb enforcement (don't know if this is the case) then the behaviour side should be actionable on this forum, regardless of whether Bree and IP are the same person. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning 174.112.83.21

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I believe this is the wrong venue, this should go to

No because its not a clear case for a SPI because he has abandoned his main account. Considering all the things he did with that account, if he had continued his edit warring and uncivil behavior from it, he most likely would be banned from Arab-Israeli articles, so it look like he is trying to continue the same disruptive behaviour but without the history of the Breein account to avoid being sanctioned. This is a case for Enforcement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest filing on

WP:SPI, but keeping this thread open for now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I filed a SPI here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007. --Dailycare (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the IP a warning, otherwise considering neither the IP or the suspected main account have made any substantial edits in the last week, I think we can close this report without further action. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see

Appealing user

JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – JRHammond (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Ban from editing and participating on the Talk page of the Six Day War article imposed by

User:Wgfinley. See my User page:[34]

Administrator imposing the sanction

talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA

)

Notification of that administrator

[35]

Statement by User:JRHammond

In both cases where I've employed the editprotected template, I: 1. Proposed an edit to the community, 2. Presented my rationale, and requested input from others, 3. Received feedback or met no objections, 4. Reached agreement on my proposed fix or was met with no objections. So I fail to see what the problem is. I'm using the tag precisely as it was intended, as you yourself just outlined. And, as I said, I will continue to employ the tag as it was intended to be used.[40]

Anyone may verify that I did indeed do exactly as the admin had outlined before employing the template. The whole premise of

(3) There is no Wikipedia guideline that I am aware of that limits the amount of participation an editor may make on the talk page. Are we seriously supposed to consider that, as

In other words, you will be disruptive if you consider it necessary you will venue shop by abusing the "editprotected" template and believe proper usage of it is "unreasonable". and that you expect the changes to be made.

(4) Again, I did not abuse the "editprotected" template, as outlined above. I used it precisely as the admin told me it should be used. I also absolutely did not in any way say or suggest that its "proper usage of it is 'unreasonable'".

JRHammond, I am gratified that you have agreed to follow the procedure I outlined, but you seem to have missed an important point that I can't stress strongly enough: Any editprotect requests will be denied without evidence of support. The absence of responses, positive or negative, does not constitute support.. You won't find an administrator on Wikipedia who will agree to a request to edit a contentious article without clear positive evidence of consensus.[42]

And again:

Until others support this change, the change will not be made while the article is protected. I encourage other editors to weigh in, so we can establish a consensus and move on. Sorry if this sounds too procedural and bureaucratic, but that's the way it has to be while the article is protected. So I ask other editors: support or oppose?[43]

To which I replied:

This is an unreasonable standard. I've requested editors to state their approval/objections already. As I already said, I'm willing to wait longer to give more opportunity, but if a reasonable amount of time passes (you suggested a week, which is fine with me), and nobody has objected, the fact that nobody may have expressed approval either is not a reasonable basis not to implement a fix, particularly one as completely uncontroversial as this. Give it time. If there are no objections, please make the edit. Thanks.

This statement constitutes no basis for an indefinite ban whatsoever. There is nothing on the page explaining the proper usage of the template that supports the view here that a proposed edit (an uncontroversial one at that) that has received no objections after a reasonable period of time cannot be implemented.[44]. Moreover,

Okay I didn't realise there were two separate requests. I recommend putting each in a new section so that they don't get confused. I've invited other editors to comment on your proposal and if there is no response in a couple of days I can make the edit.[45]

Thus, here is an admin,

Further, you are uncivil to other editors, you accuse them of making personal attacks where there are none,[36] [37] [38] [39] [40], which appears to be your response to anyone who disagrees with you.

(5) I have in no way been uncivil. Nor did I accuse anyone of making personal attacks.

In sum,

Reply to "Statement by

User:Wgfinley

:

Your request is unreasonable in that it would meant my tacit acceptance of the premise and the validity of your stated pretexts, which are wholly spurious. Hence my choice rather to appeal than to grant your baseless accusations any air of legitimacy.

Reply to "Outing Accusation":

I do not edit using my full name as you do (your full name appears and other identification appear on your user page). You posted personal information that identified me personally that I had never shared anywhere on Wikipedia, which is on its face a violation of

WP:OUTING

.

Reply to "Six Day War ban"

Full response above. In sum, to each of your stated pretexts: (1) I have made every effort to work with other editors, in full good faith, to improve the article. (2) Contrary to your disingenuous mischaracterization, I employed the "editprotected" template as per its instructions and only ever stated my intention to continue to employ it as it was intended to be used. (3) The fact that I've been very active on the Talk page is no basis for a ban, much less an indefinate one. (4) I never said the "proper usage of it [the "editprotected" template] is 'unreasonable'", as you falsely stated. (5) I have not been uncivil, nor have I accused "of making personal attacks", as you falsely state. I observed that others continually employed ad hominem arguments, appealing to supposed prejudice rather than substantively addressing my arguments -- the definition an ad hominem fallacy. Requesting that others not engage in such fallacious argumentation and instead address my arguments substantively, on the basis of the facts and logic I present, is no grounds for a ban whatsoever. These are the stated reasons for your ban. Every one is spurious. JRHammond (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further remarks on charge of "tendentious editing"

"Tendentious editing" is defined as "Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole. It does not conform to the neutral point of view, and fails to do so at a level more general than an isolated comment that was badly thought out. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors."[48]

The fact that I have been accused of such is rather strange, since the article in question has been under protection for some time, and I couldn't make an edit to it if I wanted to. That fact in itself is enough to demonstrate the spuriousness of this stated pretext for my ban. Moreover, every edit I've proposed has been perfectly reasonable, and I've been more than willing to work with others to find an agreeable solution. As evidence, reviewing what I've been working on lately, of which there are precisely 3 items:

(1) I proposed an edit which was objected to, and User:BorisG made a counterproposal, which I accepted and then called on others to state their positions on. An administrator reviewed and implemented my proposal to remove false and misleading material from the article until a consensus could be achieved on a replacement (if any).[49]

(2) I proposed a completely uncontroversial edit which to this very moment still has not received a single objection. [50]

(3) I observed that an existing paragraph violates

WP:WEIGHT by lending undue weight to one alleged "underlying issue" leading to the Suez Crisis to the exclusion of all issues actually leading to that conflict as represented by mainstream sources. I proposed to either (a) remove this paragraph or (b) expand the discussion to include a discussion of what those underlying issues were from mainstream sources, presenting both viewpoints where appropriate. To date, despite lengthy tangential discussion, nobody has substantively addressed my concerns here or explained why my suggested solution is in any way unreasonable. [51]

"A disruptive editor is an editor who: (1) Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. (2) Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. (3) Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified ^[citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. (4) Does not engage in consensus building: repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. (5) Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

(1) Not applicable.

User:Wgfinley

accuses me of "tendentious" editing, but the fact of the matter is the article is protected and I couldn't edit it even if I wanted to. (2) Not applicable. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. I've made enormous efforts to build consensus on improvements to the article (see above). I don't disregard other editors' questions or requests for explanations, or their explanations for their edits. (5) Not applicable. I always take community input into consideration (see above). I haven't made edits despite an opposing consensus (and couldn't even if I wanted to, as the topic is and has been protected).

Reply to BorisG

User:BorisG replied to assert his opinion that I am biased. (1) This opinion is not a reason to ban me, or a reason not to deny my request to repeal the ban. (2) I challenge BorisG to substantiate his opinion, which I wholeheartedly reject. JRHammond (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Amatulic

User:Amatulic

comments regarding my use of the "editprotected" template. In the first instance I used it, Amatulic acknowledges I did so correctly: "I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page history, found a consensus (not all in one place) for removal or replacement for two contentious sentences, and removed them."

But then Amatulic says: "My first action was to stop what I perceived as misuse of the editprotected template. I saw instances of debate being generated by JRHammond placing that template, which is the reverse of what should happen: first debate, come to consensus, and then place an editprotected template to have the consensus change implemented. JRHammond insisted that he had been doing this, in spite of evidence on the same talk page of an editprotected template followed by a huge debate."

Notice he stays "instances", plural. But there was only ONE other instance where I used the template. My use of the template generated NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER. Not a single person objected to my proposed edit[52] As a matter of fact, the only two editors to even RESPOND to my use of the template were

User:Amatulic

himself! So what "huge debate" is Amatulic talking about? There was none, and Amatulic is being totally disingenuous.

Amatulic continues: "He added that a requested change should be implemented for requests to which nobody objects or responds in any way, and stated repeatedly that he would continue using the template as he had been doing. I stated, repeatedly, that for a highly contentious article as this, lack of response doesn't imply consensus, and unless I see positive support for a change (not lack of any response) the change won't be implemented no matter how non-controversial JRHammond sees it. He stated that this standard is "unreasonable". Then, apparently, JRHammond went admin shopping."

Amatulic reverses the order of events. I came to an agreement with User:MSGJ on September 2, in which MSGJ said: "I've invited other editors to comment on your proposal and if there is no response in a couple of days I can make the edit."[53] That was BEFORE I told Amatulic his different standard, one unsupported by the page explaining the use of the template, was unreasonable.

So Amatulic constructs a false premise upon which to build this argument: "This, however, does not excuse the apparent canvassing of admins on JRHammond's part, and does not excuse JRHammond's insistence, after being told repeatedly how the editprotected tag should be used, that he would continue to use it disruptively. To his credit, I will say that JRHammond has not used the editrequested template since I began to mediate."

Again, I had already been discussing the matter with MSGJ BEFORE Amatulic even got involved, and I had already come to an understanding with MSGJ BEFORE Amatulic stated his very different standard. Thus, there was no "canvassing" (which I'm not aware would be a ban-able offense even if I had done so). As for "how the editprotected tag should be used", Amatulic acknowledges that he "perceived" a misuse of the tag -- but that is a wrong perception, as noted above (he says it generated a "huge debate", but that is absolutely FALSE). I already had a prior understanding with another admin that the edit would be made after a period of time if there were no objections made. Then along came Amatulic telling me something different, which is unsupported by the instructions and policies on the use of the template. He states that I insisted that I "would continue to use it disruptively". That is absolutely false. I never said any such thing. On the contrary, the only time I said anything about continuing to use the template, what I said was: "I'm using the tag precisely as it was intended, as you yourself just outlined. And, as I said, I will continue to employ the tag as it was intended to be used." To that, Amatulic himself replied: "JRHammond, I am gratified that you have agreed to follow the procedure I outlined." And he's also observed: "To his credit, I will say that JRHammond has not used the editrequested template since I began to mediate."

So why are we here?!!! This ban and the stated pretexts for it are ridiculously spurious!

Amatulic continues: "I do agree that his activity on the talk page qualifies as tendentious, with the result that other good-faith contributors to the article were being chased off, and that is unacceptable." On what basis? On the basis that I don't agree with his standard for the usage of the editprotected template? Yet, again, before Amatulic stated his personal view on how the template should be used, I already had an agreement with MSGJ, who said if there were no objections, he would make the edit! On what basis does he say my contributions to the talk page "chased off" other editors? There is absolutely no basis for that assertion whatsoever. Every editor is free to contribute or not contribute on their own free will. I shouldn't be punished simply because other editors contribute less than I do. I shouldn't be punished for making an extraordinary effort to improve the article. Who has been "chased off" by me, and how have I "chased" them "off"? By barraging people with personal insults? By making threats against them? How, pray tell, have I "chased off" other editors? This is just ridiculous.

Finally, Amatulic states: "I have mixed feelings about an indefinite ban, but now that it is in place, the ban should not be lifted without an agreement from JRHammond to specific behavioral changes." What "behavioral changes", pray tell, should I be required to make? That I should accept Amatulic's standard over MSGJ's?!!! What? As demonstrated above, the entire premise of Amatulic's argument here is fallacious. JRHammond (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to mbz1

WP:OUTING in posting information personally identifying me.[54]

(2) Telling people they have employed ad hominem arguments is not among the reasons for which I was banned, so this is irrelevant. (3) The problem with ad hominem arguments is not that I observe that others employ ad hominem arguments a lot. The problem is that others employ ad hominem arguments a lot.

Take, for instance, the incident Mbz1 cites. In that incident, Amatulic had made an edit as per my "editprotected" request. In Amatulic's own words: "I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page history, found a consensus (not all in one place) for removal or replacement for two contentious sentences, and removed them."

User:Ling.Nut responded to Amatulic by saying: "That was probably a bad move, Amatulic. How much time did you spend familiarizing yourself with these threads? The odds that JR will accept the insertion of a neutral sentence are vanishingly small; now we will need to spend weeks arguing about it. Thanks." I responded by observing that (a) this is an ad hominem argument; (b) Amatulic's action had removed false and misleading information from the article that Ling.Nut himself agreed was problematic and in need of replacement; and (c) that I had already agreed to a compromise solution proposed by User:BorisG

, and that it was Ling.Nut who would not accept the insertion of BorisG's neutral solution, and thus that it was hypocritical of him to suggest that I would drag the discussion on for "weeks". These were valid and reasonable observations on my part.

I am not the one engaging in ad hominem arguments. My arguments are factually and logically sound. Unlike other editors, I don't find it necessary to engage in fallacious rhetorical devices. Am I to be punished for not engaging in this kind of behavior and insisting that others do not do so, either? JRHammond (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you should take your accusations about outing out. I was outed a few times, and the first thing I have done, when I found out about this, was to ask it to be oversighted. You on the other hand did not even bother to remove so called outing from your talk page, and why to remove it? You are proud of the article "Yes, Jews killed Jesus too", aren't you? I do not even ask who else were killed by Jews So, I consider your ungrounded accusation of outing to be a harassment.BTW I opposed one of your blocks. So as you could see I have nothing against you personally, but I believe everything should be fair. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Length"

Wgfinley states: "I picked indefinite as JRH has shown no intention of changing his behavior. His last block was for intentionally violating an article ban to do a tendentious edit. What did he do as soon as he came back? Started repeatedly submitting the same edit using the "editprotected" template to admin shop. Length seems to be of no consequence to him because we have the wrong version."

Wgfinley seems incapable of understanding why the policy guidelines exist at Wikipedia.

WP:IAR

states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Wgfinley has tried to enforce policies with total disregard for the merits/demerits of an edit/proposed edit, enforcing the letter as opposed to the spirit of those policies. The fact is that this is with regard to an edit I wanted to make that would replace an unsourced and false statement with a very well sourced statement of fact. Clearly, replacing false information in the article is an improvement. Yet Wgfinley REVERTED this improvement I had made to the article! Since he brings up my previous block, it's appropriate for me to repost my statement in appealing that block -- which not a single administrator ever substantively addressed:

The situation is simple, and grossly mischaracterized by WGFinley, who has previously blocked me on similarly spurious pretexts (you will observe the fact that I successfully had that block reversed because of its spurious nature).[55] A section of the Six Day War article stated that the French version of UN resolution 242 is not authoritative, that only the English version of the text is legally valid. This is false. So I corrected the article to note that the French version is equally authoritative as the English. I provided a source, to the deliberations on 242 just prior to its passage by the UN Security Council, in which the French delegate observes this fact, that the French version is equally authoritative. I also began a new section on the talk page to address this issue and provide an extensive explanation for my edit, contrary to WGFinley's suggestion that I've refused to try to work with others to build consensus on the Talk page.[56]

Following that, somebody reverted that edit with the reason provided in the edit summary being that this source was not good enough to demonstrate that the French text is legally authoritative. I again returned to the Talk page, observed that no source was provided for the (false) assertion that the French text was not authoritative, and that thus a double-standard was being applied.[57] Nevertheless, I did not simply revert the revert to restore my previous fix. Rather, I made an enormous effort to find authoritative sources to satisfy the stated objection to my edit.[58] Having done so, I again corrected the unsourced and false assertion to the contrary, this time, to satisfy the objection, including those additional sources. [59]

An anonymous editor (IP only) then reverted my fix, with the edit summary stating "revert 1RR violation".[60] (1) I did not "revert" my edit. I took the objection to my original edit into consideration and provided numerous additional sources. (2) A non-admin has no legitimate authority to revert my fix under the guise of enforcing Wikipedia policy. That is not a legitimate reason to revert my fix, or a legitimate objection based on the merit/demerit of the edit itself. (3) No further discussion was made by this editor on the talk page, despite my creation of a new discussion extensively explaining my edit and offering sources. There was no explanation made for this revert on Talk, and no objection raised, such as with regard to my additional sources. Given these facts, it seemed reasonable to me to re-implement my fix, in order to correct a factual error and thus to improve the article, and I did so.[61]

WP:3RR clearly states that "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." The spirit of that principle must clearly also apply to enforcement of the 1RR rule in effect on the Six Day War article, and I explicitly made this point to WGFinley prior to this whole episode, when I agreed with his interpretation of how 1RR should be enforced. WGFinley did not object to the principle that what is important to enforce is the spirit and not the letter of the policy, that leeway should be granted to editors who make good faith edits to improve the article.[62] Yet WGFinley did NOT take into consideration, even in the least bit, the actual merits/demerits of my edit, when he blocked me, as demonstrated by the fact that he reverted my fix back to the version that contains a false and unsourced statement.[63]

(a) My edit: "However, the definite article is included in the French text of the resolution ("des territoires occupés"), which is equally authoritative as the English text." Fully footnoted with numerous authoritative sources.[64]

or

b) WGFinley's revert of my edit back to: "The word the is present in other (notably French, Spanish and Russian) versions, but according to international law, the authoritative version of a document is the one which uses the language used in the drafting of the document, which in this case was English." Not only completely unsourced, but demonstrably false. [65]

My good faith efforts speak for themselves, as do my legitimate and reasonable edits.

I continue to stand by that edit, and

User:Amatulic

did the right thing by approving my request to remove the false and misleading information from the article. Lost in all of this is the whole purpose for Wikipedia policy guidelines, WHICH EXIST TO HELP EDITORS MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE ARTICLES. I have been making an enormous effort to improve this article. I stand by my edits I've made in the past (which are irrelevant to my current ban), and I stand by the 3 -- count them, 3 -- proposed edits I've since introduced on the Talk page, one of which was approved by an admin, the second of which I have reached an agreement with another admin to implement if, after a bit more time, there remain no objections, and the third which was still under discussion (notice I did not employ the template in that case) when I was yet again unreasonably banned on spurious pretexts.

The merits of edits/proposed edits MUST be taken into account by admins in deciding arbitration appeals. To fail or refuse to do so is to ignore the whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia guidelines. As I said then, my good faith efforts speak for themselves, as do my previous legitimate and reasonable edits, and as do my current legitimate and reasonable proposed edits. JRHammond (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jiujitsuguy

Jiujitsuguy, a not-uninvolved editor, essentially reiterates Wgfinley's argument, above, referring to my previous block. He is correct that I did not accept that I had done anything wrong. I stand by my edit, and I maintain that it is the spirit, rather than the letter, of Wikipedia policies that applies. My edit improved the article by correcting a demonstrably false statement. And I was PUNISHED for doing so. That was an abuse of authority and an action in direct violation of the SPIRIT of Wikipedia guidelines. See above.

Reply to Ling.Nut

I don't understand the basis for his comments. Ling.Nut has a tendency to speak in vague generalities. I would merely observe, in reply to Ling.Nut's comments, that I cooperated at great lengths with Ling.Nut, and was instrumental in helping to see Ling.Nut's lede re-write implemented in the article, an initiative of his that I fully and enthusiastically supported. So, again, I don't know what Ling.Nut is talking about. Ling.Nut and I have disagreed on various other matters, but I have only ever argued my position by stating facts and employing valid logic, extensively. Ling.Nut, in turn, has repeatedly engaged in ad hominem argumentation against me (that is, he has very often alleged prejudice or attacked my character rather than answering my contentions on the substance of fact and logic). A few among more recent examples:

"I know that you're very invested in avoiding any text that affords the Israeli POV any toehold at all into legitimacy..."

"Your statement completely privileges the Arab viewpoint in every respect. This licenses blatant Arab propaganda, whether you realize it or not."

"Your perspective privileges the Arab narrative..."

"The odds that JR will accept the insertion of a neutral sentence are vanishingly small; now we will need to spend weeks arguing about it."

Ling.Nut has repeatedly accused me of bias in lieu of pointing out any error in fact or logic on my part or otherwise substantively addressing my arguments. I equally reject his ad hominem argument on this page. His characterization here is equally without foundation, and does not in any way address the facts and logic I've offered in requesting appeal. The fact that he has often disagreed with me is no basis for continuing this ban. JRHammond (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to 99.254.145.130

Excuse me, is my appeal actually going to be decided in part by anonymous IP users? User:99.254.145.130 stated: actually after his 48 hour topic ban he got topic banned again for 2 weeks as well as blocked for 7 days.

(1) That is not true. Wgfinley told me on my Talk page that he had imposed a 48 ban on me. I rejected his stated reason (see above). I then found that I had not been blocked and could still edit, so I did so. I was then informed that I had been blocked for one week as a result. I didn't understand until then that a "ban" was different from a "block". That block expired some time ago, and I returned to editing. There was no additional "2 weeks" topic ban. At least, if Wgfinley imposed such on me, I was never made aware of it. (2) This ban should be judged not on the basis of previous issues for which I had already been blocked (wrongfully, in my view). This ban must be judged non-prejudicially on the basis of its stated pretexts, which, as I have demonstrated, are completely spurious.

Oh sure there were additional "2 weeks" as it was explained at your talk page: "you are now blocked for 7 days from editing. Your are banned for two weeks from editing Six-Day War."--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. That must have escaped me because, like I said, at the time I didn't know a "ban" was different from a "block". And my point remains: It was implied there was a two-week ban on me that I had violated. That assertion is absolutely false, as, again, I haven't edited the article since before my 7 day block.JRHammond (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reply to Amatulic

In response, Amatulic said:

JRHammond appears confused by the instance of a single word ("then") which I have now struck from my comment for clarity, as that paragraph was not intended to continue a chronological tale.

I need only observe that this is an acknowlegment that his claim that I went "canvassing" for editors to support my position AFTER he expressed his personal interpretation of how the template should be used was FALSE.

Yet Amatulic, instead of acknowledging his error -- the entire basis of his argument in favor of this ban, instead insists that I "went admin shopping to MSGJ". Amatulic would have people believe that when he discusses the order of events, it's relevant, but when I reply to correct the factual record, it is "pointless bickering". This, along with his false statements, demonstrates a lack of good faith and extreme prejudice, and Amatulic on that basis should not be allowed to judge in this appeal.

Here are the facts:

• Amatulic on September 1 suggested I withdraw the template because he mistakenly thought my use of it had sparked a debate (see his claim that there was a "huge debate" over it). This was false. That was a totally separate discussion on a totally separate issue. The proposed edit for which I employed the template had been met with NO opposition WHATSOEVER.

• MSGJ then came to the page of his own accord and deactivated the template. I did not go "admin shopping" or "canvassing". Again, MSGJ can confirm to all of you that I did not seek him out; MSGJ came to the talk page of his own accord. Amatulic's assertion to the contrary is yet another example of a complete lack of honesty on Amatulic's part.

• I then went to MSGJ's talk page to ask why he had deactivated the template, so I would know what I need to do to correct the problem, and we came to an understanding that we would give it more time, and if no objections were raised, he would make the edit.

• It was AFTER that understanding was arrived at that Amatulic stated his differing opinion that were MSGJ to do so, it would be an abuse of the template.

Those are the facts.

The entire basis of Amatulic's argument here in support of the ban is based upon a demonstrably false premise. JRHammond (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to Wgfinley

Wgfinley has now stated:

Since I had some time I have added some diffs. I thought this case to be rather obvious and textbook but diffs now supplied of him immediately coming back trying to get his edit in that he was blocked for, ignoring opposing viewpoints, adding the {{editprotected}} template with no consensus 4 times in a 24 hour period and then states he has no intention of stopping. JRH's idea of consensus is to count the hands raised ignoring those of anyone who disagrees.

This is an absolute mischaracterization. There were two edits I used the "editprotected" template for. Here are the facts:

(1) The article contained a false statement on UN Resolution 242. It was recognized as problematic, and it was agreed that text should be replaced. There were no objections raised to replacing the text to correct the false statement. An agreement could not be reached on the replacement text, because

WP:IAR

: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."

(2) Elsewhere, I employed the template on a separate proposed edit. In that other case, I had stated what the problem was with the existing wording, proposed an uncontroversial fix (uncontroversial in that it quoted directly from the UNEF mandate itself, instead of using some other source's mischaracterization of what that mandate was), and requested that other editors state their positions on it. It was met with no objection. I then stated my intent to use the template and again requested editors to use the opportunity to state their objections, if any. None were made. I then employed the template, precisely as it was intended to be used. Again, the bottom line is that this whole nonsense is preventing work from being done to improve the article, such as by blocking my proposed fix on the UNEF mandate, which to this very moment, still nobody has offered any reason why it would be objectionable. This whole situation, ban included, is just ridiculous. JRHammond (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FOR ADMINS

What Wikipedia policy guideline have I violated to warrant this ban? Please state which one(s).

In what way have I violated said Wikipedia policy guidelines? Please quote me where I said anything in violation of said guideline(s), or point to the diff for whatever action of mine was in violation of said guideline(s).

Short of that, please lift this ban immediately. Thank you. JRHammond (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by

User:Wgfinley

I had a whole section here but I'm removing it to save on clutter. I explained the ban on the user's talk page in detail so it can be found there. I think his statement is clear evidence of his tendentious, combative and disruptive nature. I stand by everything that was here previously I just no longer see a need for it and wish to keep this space tidy. --

I picked indefinite as JRH has shown no intention of changing his behavior. His last block was for intentionally violating an article ban[66] to do a tendentious edit[67]. What did he do as soon as he came back? Started repeatedly submitting the same edit [68] using the {{editprotected}} template to admin shop. [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] . Length seems to be of no consequence to him because we have

Statement by User:BorisG

Over the years I made very minor contributions to

There is no need for me to substantiate anything. I just expressed my opinion, which is based on experience. No one should take my word for it. Anyone interested should form their own opinion by looking at the talk page Talk:Six-Day War. But the pattern is very clear even from JRHammond's statement above. - BorisG (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional comments:

JRHammond states above that

User:Jiujitsuguy's statement is in the right place, as this section is specifically fot involved editors. - BorisG (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Can someone please move the comment by an anonimous user from a section reserved for uninvolved admins? - BorisG (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since an admin already replied to it, it wouldn't make sense to move it out of the context anymore. ~

talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Then, apparently, JRHammond went admin shopping. From his statement above: I did find an admin who very clearly agreed with my view on the proper use of the template. After the misunderstanding I noted above was cleared up with the admin who deactivated the template, that admin stated: "Okay I didn't realise there were two separate requests. I recommend putting each in a new section so that they don't get confused. I've invited other editors to comment on your proposal and if there is no response in a couple of days I can make the edit." (See User talk:MSGJ).

I observe that MSGJ has not been engaged in the conflict and may have been unaware of my attempt to mediate. MSGJ is, of course, free to act any way he sees fit, and I would not object to his acceptance of an editprotected request to which I insist there be positive support. This, however, does not excuse the apparent canvassing of admins on JRHammond's part, and does not excuse JRHammond's insistence, after being told repeatedly how the editprotected tag should be used, that he would continue to use it disruptively. To his credit, I will say that JRHammond has not used the editrequested template since I began to mediate.

While I felt we were making slow progress prior to JRHammond's ban, I do agree that his activity on the talk page qualifies as tendentious, with the result that other good-faith contributors to the article were being chased off, and that is unacceptable. I have mixed feelings about an indefinite ban, but now that it is in place, the ban should not be lifted without an agreement from JRHammond to specific behavioral changes. ~

JRHammond is selective about the ordering of events. Talk:Six-Day War speaks for itself. I saw no need to summarize every exchange in my comment above. But it is obvious from the talk page that I became involved in August. I asked JRHammond to withdraw an editprotected template on 1 September at 5:31 UTC. He then went admin shopping to MSGJ at 12:34 regarding this exact same template, which MSGJ had disabled.

This appeal should focus on the behavioral rationale behind JRHammond's ban, not pointless bickering about who said what and when. ~

Amatulić, you are an admin and an uninvolved one at that (as you were only involved in an administrative capacity). Why do you comment in the involved editors section and not in the decision section below? - BorisG (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I commented here as WGFinley did, with the reasoning that I was "involved" in the sense of actively trying to guide and mediate discussion on

talk) 00:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Fact: Your request for my withdraw of the Suez Crisis was on the faulty basis that it had "started a long debate".[74]. That was incorrect, as you well know, and as I politely pointed out to you at the time.[75] It was a simple misunderstanding. MSGJ made the same error of confusing the two sections I had created, and was kind enough to split the sections for me to resolve the confusion.

Fact: MSGJ arrived on the talk page of his own accord, to examine my request. MSGJ thus approached me, and not the other way around. JRHammond (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact: Regardless of the ordering, the fact remains that JRHammond has approached other administrators whom he feels may be sympathetic to his postition. See the talk pages of PhilKnight and MSGJ.

Fact: Any comments I've made on PhilKnight's talk page have been subsequent to the ban, and therefore cannot constitute any kind of reason or justification for that ban. This is irrelevant. As for my discussion with MSGJ, I did not "approach" him because I thought he "may be sympathetic" to my position. I went to his talk page after he approached me to ask his reason for declining my request. His reason was the same as yours: He mistakenly confused the two sections. Once that misunderstanding was cleared up, he agreed to make the edit after more time, if there remained no objections. Again, none of this constitutes any basis whatsoever for this ban to remain. JRHammond (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact: JRHammond claims that one editprotected request was met with "no opposition whatsoever". That is false. It was a single request in two parts, which he later split. The fact is, JRHammond placed an editprotected request (a single request for two edits) that was followed by a long debate. He complains about my characterization of the debate as "huge". OK, whatever. The point is that a lengthy argument followed an editprotected request. That shouldn't happen if consensus had been properly sought prior to making the request.

Fact: Amatulic cannot get his facts straight. The statement that "It was a single request in two parts, which he later split" is false. There were two different proposed edits, only the first of which I employed the template on, after having been met with no objections. Also, again, it was not I who split my two different proposals into different sections, but MSGJ, who did so to clear up the confusion and misunderstanding that had arisen from my having the two separate proposals under the same section. And the statement that there was no opposition "is false" is false. There was no opposition whatsoever to the edit for which I employed the template. JRHammond (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fact: MSGJ agreed to make JRHammond's requested edit without noticing that Ling.Nut had already declined to support it. MSGJ acknowledged this by reverting JRHammond's requested edit.

MSGJ reverted the edit apparently on the basis of similarly misunderstanding Ling.Nut's remarks to constitute opposition. Ling.Nut has since clarified, stating explicitly: "I'm not Opposing [the proposed edit]."[76]

• Conclusion: JRHammond's conduct on Talk:Six-Day War, User talk:MSGJ, User talk:PhilKnight, as well as his own appeal here clearly shows where he stands regarding assuming good faith. His unwillingness to see other points of view, his characterization of disagreement as ad-hominem attacking, his treatment of multiple talk pages as a battleground rather than a community, cause my earlier mixed feelings about an indefinite ban to now leaning toward supporting it are all indications of a tendentious editor.

You have once again made numerous demonstrably false statements, in addition to misleading statements, as the foundation of your argument favoring rejecting my appeal, expressing falsehoods as "Fact", as demonstrated above -- thus once again demonstrating extreme prejudice against me. You have not demonstrated an "unwillingness to see other points of view" on my part. This is a baseless opinion, and does not constitute grounds for maintaining this ban. Where I have observed that others employed ad hominem arguments, it was because they had, in fact, done so. There is nothing unreasonable about requesting that, if people are to express disagreement with my arguments, that they do so on the basis of the facts and logic I present, rather than by appealing to supposed prejudice on my part (e.g. "His unwillingness to see other points of view" is, by definition, an ad hominem argument). My observations in this regard do not constitute any kind of reasonable basis to uphold this ban whatsoever. You have not demonstrated that I treat "multiple talk pages" (in fact, I've only been involved on two talk pages) as "a battleground". This is a baseless opinion, and not grounds to deny my appeal. I could just as easily argue that you are treating this appeal "as a battleground", as evidenced by your repeatedly making false and prejudicial statements against me. Finally,

WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• JRHammond describes in his defense several incidents that he deems unworthy of a ban, and asks what has he done to deserve a ban. He has been asked several times to read
  talk) 02:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I trust that is evidence enough that I've read the policy guidelines in question. JRHammond (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Inasmuch as I have not edited the article in question, an appeal to

WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal. " [77] Enigma^msg 05:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

*Sigh*. It goes without saying that when I say I haven't edited the article, I mean I have not done so during the relevant period of time for which my alleged behavior has allegedly warranted this ban, which is the period of time since the previous block on me expired. So, again, inasmuch as I simply have not edited the article, an appeal to

WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Frederico1234

I think the block was premature as a new admin had just arrived to the talk page and had begun mediating. I also think that

Regarding the previous 31h block: JRHammond was reported for 3RR violation here. As seen in that edit, the alleged reverts are the following:

• 16 July @ 04:09 [78]
• 16 July @ 04:58 [79]
• 16 July @ 15:13 [80]
• 16 July @ 17:45 [81]

JRHammond was notified of the block here. I believe the diffs makes it clear that a) JRHammond did not violate 3RR and b) the stated reason for the block was indeed 3RR violation. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by mbz1

I have got an impression that User:JRHammond is using the words "ad hominem " way too often, and in response to practically every argument. User:Cptnono wrote to user:JRHammond] "Calling someone's remarks vain and ad hominem while referring to them as a hypocrite is just as bad as any slight against you. And you are kind of flooding the talk pge with text so it".

user:Wgfinley is not involved with User:JRHammond because he "interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role". I believe this appeal should be declined.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• I share in the sentiment expressed by Amatulic statement above: "I have mixed feelings about an indefinite ban, but now that it is in place, the ban should not be lifted without an agreement from JRHammond to specific behavioral changes". I would add the word "definitely" before "should".
• I suggest that these changes be discussed in a concrete manner in a relevant forum (probably this one).
• User:JRHammond's account has only existed since 30 March 2010. If it is in fact the case that he has only been around since the end of March (and I have occasionally wondered about this), perhaps there are underlying aspects of Wikipedia's culture that he is not yet fully cognizant of or compliant with.
• Ling.Nut 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• JR has stated that I speak in vague generalities. In fact, I have done so deliberately, in order to pour liberal doses of
  WP:AGF
  on every one of my words. If I didn't AGF, then I would speak a great deal more clearly and sharply. Ambiguity leaves room for alternate interpretations, which in turn leaves room for AGF.
• I will now speak clearly:

1. the "wall of words" approach to editing creates a noxious atmosphere. No one wants to participate if their every comment generates a small pamphlet-sized response. Two editors whom I respect have already popped in, been hit with the wall of words, and quietly disappeared. Speaking for myself, I sometimes feel a tiny bit abused, and often feel more than a little exhausted.
2. I am trying to AGF about the wall of words. It could be
   WP:PUSH
   ).
3. JR also seems to view editing as a battle for territory (no pun intended.. sincerely sorry.. but that's actually the image that comes to mind). Every phrase needs to be conquered at any cost, and then defended voluminously. It's a zero-sum game, with winners and losers.. Again, it creates a noxious atmosphere. This is, in some ways, worse than the wall of words.
4. I... you know, I AGF on all these points, but especially on this one: I just wonder if JR is aware that what he probably sees as righteous and noble persistence is perceived by others as admin shopping, guideline-evading, etc etc. I don't think he sees the situation in the same light as would editors who are uncommitted to either POV. Americans (and I am American) are brought up thinking far, far, far more about their personal rights than about their
   Ling.Nut 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
   ]

(1) Presenting a great many facts and well-reasoned arguments to support one's position ("wall of words") is not a violation of Wikipedia policy.

(2) See (1).

(3) Key phrase here being "seems to". Your entitled to your opinion, but that unsubstantiated opinion is no basis either to maintain this ban or deny my appeal. As for the "wall of words", see (1).

(4) You're projecting, and otherwise stating a completely speculative opinion, which is no basis either to maintain this ban or deny my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not say I wanted to maintain the ban. I do not support a permanent ban at this time; I do not believe you have used up all your chances yet... However, have you asked anyone a question that wasn't rhetorical? Have you let down your guard? Have you engaged in real dialog? Have you asked for feedback? Have you engaged in give and take discussion with anyone about their comments here? Have you attempted to move toward an understanding of what motivates people to request that you alter your behavior? Please don't assume it's all POV-based opposition. Sure, there are a few pro-Israel editors who wouldn't be appeased if you suddenly became Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa all rolled into one, but that description certainly does not fit everyone here. I understand that the situation (appealing a permanent ban) would tend to make a person defensive, but your behavior here shows no openness to input from others, reflection, self-examination or compromise. I am not your adversary, and several others here also are not. What can we do to work together? You don't seem to understand that the issue in this forum is only perhaps 20% about the facts of the matter, but 80% about the nature of the interactions. • 
  Ling.Nut 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do you need further examples of my cooperative editing? How about my proposed edit on Resolution 242, and my concern that the article contained false information? I proposed an edit, and User:BorisG objected to it and, after further discussion, offered a compromise solution, which I immediately accepted, despite the fact that every single concession in BorisG's proposal was made by me. In fact, it was you who rejected it, despite your suggestion that I was the one holding up progress.

I have never suggested and would certainly not agree that opposition to my edits are POV-based, so I don't know why you ask me not to assume so. Take you. You seem to have had concerns about proposed edits not on the basis of their merits/demerits, but solely on the basis of the fact that they were proposed by JRHammond, and you have repeatedly asserted on the Talk page that I am biased, without ever pointing to any violation of

WP:NPOV

to make the article read more neutrally.

So let me tell you where I'm coming from, Ling.Nut. The policy guidelines exist for one and only one purpose, and that is to create an environment conducive to maintaining or improving articles. Yet the "rules" are being exercised against me with absolute disregard for their whole purpose. Take my previous block. For what? The fact of the matter is that the article contained unsourced and demonstrably false information, and all I wanted to do was replace it with a very well-sourced and accurate alternative. Yet I was blocked for making that edit, and

User:Wgfinley

even went so far as to revert that edit back to the unsourced and false statement!

I have one purpose in mind here at Wikipedia, and that is to improve articles by correcting them for factual errors, misleading statements, and so on. I am very active in doing so, as evidenced by my "wall of words" (your phrase). But what is contained in my "wall of words"? Personal attacks on others? Threatening comments to scare people away (as has ludicrously been suggested here)? Irrelevant spam? My comments on the talk page speak for themselves. I present extensive arguments in support of my proposals by offering well-sourced facts and undeniable logic. Yet I am constantly met with opposition on grounds that have nothing to do with the actual merits/demerits of my arguments! Rather than substantively addressing the issues I raise and substantiating objections by pointing out any error I've made in fact or logic, other editors engage in ad hominem argumentation, constantly opposing me on the basis of some alleged bias, without ever demonstrating that anything I propose would violate

WP:NPOV

. I'm all about discussion, Ling.Nut, but discussions are a two-way street. Is it too much to expect that if people object to something I've proposed that they do so on the basis of the merits/demerits of that proposal, rather than with accusations against my character?

Try to understand how frustrating it is for me to have administrators, far from acting to enforce the rules in a fruitful and productive manner to maintain or improve the quality of articles, instead interfering in ways that only block progress -- or, in the case cited above, reversing progress.

Try to understand how frustrating it is for me to have other editors refuse to address my proposals on the basis of my actual arguments. Take, for instance, my proposed edit on the Suez Crisis. This is the thing, apparently, that has got me banned. But let's look at it. Let's really look at this matter and judge my actions with the purpose and intent of Wikipedia guidelines in mind. You have a clear-cut case of violation of

WP:WEIGHT

: "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel." As I've demonstrated incontrovertibly, UNEF was not established only to prevent Arab attacks on Israel, but also to prevent Israeli attacks on Egypt, and it is the latter purpose that has much greater weight in the actual UNEF mandate itself. But I knew that changing the sentence to reflect the actual weight of the mandate (the whole context having been Israel's attack on Egypt!) would be met with opposition from the pro-Israel bunch, so I compromised right from the beginning in proposing the following absolutely neutral and more than reasonable alternative: "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities"."

Now, several others have objected to this. On what grounds? Has anyone pointed to any error in fact or logic? Absolutely not. You have User:BorisG objecting on the basis that it hasn't been shown the source cited for the current wording doesn't say what the article says it says. But this is a logical fallacy. The question is not whether the source is accurately cited, but whether the article accurately characterizes the UNEF mandate, and it demonstrably does not! I pointed out this fallacy to User:BorisG, but he maintained this patently fallacious argument as the basis for his objection! To reject sound logic is, by definition, to be unreasonable.

You have

WP:WEIGHT, because it places much greater emphasis on the UN's concern over Israel's attacks on Egypt than on fedayeen raids on Israel (e.g.: "However, a new situation developed in late October 1956, when Israel, in cooperation with the British and French Governments, launched an all-out attack on Egypt.", "The United Nations Emergency Force was the key element in the United Nations efforts to resolve the crisis arising from the military action of the Israeli and Anglo-French forces against Egypt."). So here, in a nutshell, you have an objection that completely ignores the actual issue raised, and which cites a source that actually demonstrates the validity of my whole point. I pointed this out to User:Ruslik0

, but he, too, refused to be reasoned with.

Finally, the whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia policies is summed up by

WP:IAR, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." All of my efforts have been directed in good faith towards the goal of improving the Six Day War article, and I stand by every one of my edits and proposed edits. I am blocked in that effort at every turn, which is extremely frustrating. If that frustration shows on occasion in my comments on the Talk page, I truly apologize if that has offended anyone. All I ask is that you try to understand where that frustration is coming from, and keep the bigger picture in mind. JRHammond (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Wikipedia can be immensely frustrating if you are passionate about the topic at hand, or about the encyclopedia as a whole. The longer I stay here, the more I situate myself within the framework of
  WP:DGAF
  . It is the only path to sanity.
• You are currently facing calls for your permanent ban from one article, and some have mentioned a broader topic ban. That is a serious matter.
• I... think... or hope... that the Arbs will see things as I do: that you deserve more chances to absorb Wikipedia's culture. But please do remember this: even if the block is completely lifted (which may happen, but... I dunno), you need to.. you need to see this as a wake-up call rather than an instance of persecution or whatever. In my opinion, if you continue to vent the level of frustration, and continue to... what can I say? if you continue to be so frantic and apoplectic in your dual quests for Truth and Redemption, you will continue to alienate people. If you continue to alienate people, there may very well come a day down the road when you will be topic banned from every article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
• You need to rethink your approach. Your approach simply is not working. Not only is it not working, it is making things much worse. Truth and Redemption are not items you can grab from the shelf. You cannot drive down the road to the Truth and Redemption store, stomp your foot, get red in the face, and demand your fair share. Truth and Redemption are plants that you nurture and grow over a very long time. patience. patience. patience. • 
  Ling.Nut 01:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The only "quest" I have, Ling.Nut, once again, is to improve the article, such as by correcting false or misleading information contained within. As for my approach in doing so, I don't know any other approach than presenting factual and logical arguments for my proposed edits, and expecting other editors to respond in kind with arguments based on fact and logic (as opposed to, say, ad hominem arguments). Nor do I think that approach is in any way inappropriate or unreasonable. Take, again, the example of my proposed edit on the Suez Crisis. What is it that I did in that case you think I need to "wake-up" about? What did I do in that case "to alienate people"? What would you suggest I had done differently? JRHammond (talk) 02:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gatoclass

PhilKnight, given that all the blocks and bans in question were handed out by WGFinley himself, whose own conduct in relation to JRH has been described or found to be inappropriate by more than one admin, escalating to a one-month ban would in my opinion only be rewarding the questionable conduct by WGF. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass. That is not true. A look at his block log shows that he was blocked on two other occasions by two other admins. Others had recognized his past problematic behavior and had instituted appropriate sanctions in the hope that this would address his aggressive and often disruptive behavior. Apparently, it had no effect.--

Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Come on, Gatoclass. All my blocks were posted by Sandstein, and you had no problem with those, and proposed to decline my appeal. The actions of WGF were appropriate, and he is uninvolved, while you are, and very deeply.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that Sandstein was too involved to make the blocks on you? If so, you could have appealed on those grounds yourself. AFAIK you have never done so, presumably because you realized that such an appeal had little chance of success.

Here, on the other hand, we have a very inexperienced admin handing out a series of punitive blocks and bans against one particular user, at least one of which - a weeklong block - has been overturned as inappropriate, who then went on to hand out an indef page ban on the same user. My own interpretation of the talk page interchanges between the two (admittedly I haven't read them all) is that WGF has been sanctioning phantom offences that appear to exist only in his own mind - as in his list of alleged incivilities, given as part of his reason for the indef ban, that are not supported by the diffs. Given the lack of evidence for at least two of WGF's administrative actions here, his other blocks of the same user must also be suspect, so I don't think JRH should be getting a longer ban on the assumption that the previous blocks were sound. Indeed, judging by the current talk page, I can't see much justification for a ban at all at this stage. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not arguing that Sandstein is involved. I am only arguing that WGF is as uninvolved as Sandstein is. He did ban the editors from the other side of the equation too. So, IMO it is inappropriate to call his actions "inappropriate". The so called "other block" of the user was appealed at that very board, and the appeal was overturned. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who else he banned and for what, but what I do know is that two of his admin actions here - firstly, a week-long block, and secondly, an indef page ban - have been described as inappropriate by several other admins, and that therefore his judgement in relation to JRH at least is suspect. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several others administrators? So far I saw only one uninvolved admin opposing the ban in this thread. Am I missing something? Gato, I hope that you'd agree that, if you "don't know who else he banned and for what", you have not enough information to make claims about "inappropriate" actions of the admin?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I don't need to study the entire history of an administrator's actions to determine that one particular action or set of actions were inappropriate. And at least three uninvolved admins have found actions taken by WGF against JRH to be inappropriate - Sandstein, who overturned the week-long block, and jpgordon and PhilKnight below in regards to the indef page ban. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, PhilKnight has never said WGF actions against JRH were inappropriate. He only argued about shortening of the ban, but not lifting it. Sandstein has not commented here at all. He did comment on the appeal of the second one week block, and asked this appeal to be declined.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Sandstein described WGF's block as "patently inappropriate" and even suggested it might constitute "an abuse of administrator tools".[82] In response to jpgordon's comment below that the indef ban was "inappropriate", PhilKnight stated that he agreed "that Wgfinley's conduct is a problem". That makes at least three uninvolved admins who recognize that WGF's conduct in relation to JRH has been problematic. Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected my statement. Sorry for the confusion. PhilKnight (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. I believe that any problematic single article account as JRH is (please notice not a single purpose, but a single article account) in the area of conflict should be banned until a user will prove that they could contribute to other areas as well. Single article accounts in conflict areas usually have a strong agenda, and it is not healthy for the project.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. I agree with the general statement, but especially as with JRHammond, whose conduct on the article and the article talk is disgraceful. Perhaps he can edit constructively elsewhere. Perhaps not. Either way, it would behoove us to find out. Enigma^msg 00:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, with all due respect, the key thing here is not what the admin did in the past, but whether JRHammond has been enaged in Tendentious Editing. I think we could be much more productive and helpful to uninvolved admins if we focused on this issue. Please look at the corresponding talk page and make up your mind, one way or the other. I gave my opinion above but I do not have enough experience to know what is the bar here. - BorisG (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TE simply does not apply, because I simply have not edited the article. JRHammond (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:TE states, for example: It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Whether it is the systemic bias of demographics or a political opinion, few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Again, as I simply have not edited the article, the assertion that I am a "tendentious editor", is inapplicable and moot. JRHammond (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

* Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole.

* Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed.

* Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view.

* On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit.

* You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.

etc... - BorisG (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of which apply to edits to articles, not comments on Talk pages. The fact is that I haven't edited the article, so, again,

WP:TE simply does not apply. JRHammond (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

[83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] Enigma^msg 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, like I said, since my previous block expired, I have not edited the article (nor could I possibly do so, even if I wanted, as the edit has since been protected), so, again,

WP:TE simply does not apply in the case of the current ban, the stated pretexts for which are alleged behaviors since my return from that block. It would be nice if those arguing in favor of denying my appeal would not continually be so disingenuous and prejudicial. JRHammond (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not what you said. You said at least three times that you have not edited the article at all. Enigma^msg 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, when I say I have not edited the article, I don't mean ever, I mean during the relevant period of time for the purposes of this current ban, which, needless to say, is since my previous block expired. That goes without saying. Or, at least, it should go without saying. I regret that that clearly has proved not to be the case, and that it has become necessary to point out the obvious to you. Once again, I have not edited the article during the relevant period of time for which my alleged behavior ostensibly has warranted this current ban, so

WP:TE simply does not apply. JRHammond (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Next time try saying what you mean, instead of saying A and then, when called on it, claiming you mean B. Basically, what you seem to be saying is that since you haven't had the opportunity to

tendentiously edit the article because it's been protected recently, you shouldn't be banned for your previous tendentious editing on the article and your current impossible behavior on the talk page. That about cover it? All your history is of relevance here, not merely what you've done over the past week or two. Enigma^msg 14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by User:Enigmaman

I have no history with the article in question, but did block JRHammond for edit-warring. For my troubles, I got a series of uncivil comments and borderline personal attacks from JRHammond. His bone of contention was that he technically did not violate 3RR. Whether that's true or not, he'd been very clearly edit warring on a sanctioned article for an extended period. As was noted by someone else,

My "bone of contention" was that I did not, as a demonstrable point of fact, confirmed to you by others, violate 3RR, which was the stated reason for that block. How you can say here "Whether that's true or not" when you knew perfectly well (again, User:Frederico1234 confirmed to you that I had not done so, and others made similar observations) demonstrates once again your lack of good faith. It's not playing very nice to block people on a false pretext, is it? I see no reason to "play nice" with editors who refuse to play nice with me. Are you going to ban yourself for not playing nice? JRHammond (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for, I quote "‎(Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule)". Everyone who commented agreed that you were edit-warring. There was a dispute over whether you technically violated 3RR. Frederico didn't confirm anything whatsoever, other than the fact that he apparently agrees with your POV. "It's not playing very nice to block people on a false pretext, is it?" See, that's a lie. I do play nice, and you were blocked for edit-warring, which you did. In fact, if that wasn't enough, you were blocked again for edit warring, by another admin. Would you like me to take a poll on whether or not you were edit warring? If the majority of editors commenting say you were not edit warring, I will fully apologize for blocking you and admit I was wrong. Until then, I will not, and I resent your continued attacks upon me. Enigma^msg 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked for, I quote: "For a clear violation of WP:3RR."[89]

Frederico1234 in fact said: I can also confirm that JRHammond did not violate 3RR.[90]

See, accusing me of lying, when it's you who can't get your facts straight, really is not playing nice. I move that User:Enigmaman not be permitted to judge in the case of my appeal on the basis of his demonstrably prejudicial treatment. JRHammond (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have my facts perfectly straight. See your block log. As for frederico, I didn't say he didn't say he confirmed it. I merely said he didn't confirm it, which he did not. Demonstrably prejudicial treatment? Utterly false. I am not prejudiced. If I was, I daresay I would have blocked you for your excessive personal attacks against me, which you were warned about by a different admin. Be that as it may, I remind you that my patience is not infinite, and if you persist in your attacks, I will block you. Enigma^msg 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the facts: The reason you gave me for the block on my talk page was: "For a clear violation of WP:3RR" You sad nothing there about "edit warring" apart from this false allegation of "violation of WP:3RR".[91] When I pointed out to you that "I did not perform more than three reverts within a 24-hour period. Therefore, I did not violate WP:3RR." and requested that you therefore lift the block,[92], you replied again not by arguing "edit warring" apart from falsely claiming that I had violated WP:3RR: "You made four reverts on July 16..."[93]. I then pointed out to you AGAIN that I had not violated 3RR, detailing every single edit I'd made and demonstrating that there had NOT been more than three reverts, which is how a violation of 3RR is defined,[94][95]. Yet you once again responded with the not only unsubstantiated but demonstrably false claim, "You very clearly did violate 3RR..."[96] So I responded by requesting that you substantiate that claim, noting that you would be unable to do so.[97] Yet you refused to do so. Even after User:SheffieldSteel stated, "Strictly speaking there may be some merit in JRhammond's original claim that there was no 3RR violation..."[98] and User:Frederico1234 stated, "I can also confirm that JRHammond did not violate 3RR.",[99] you still insisted that I had been "edit warring", offering nothing by way of evidence to support that claim,[100] and still failing to address the fact that I had not violated 3RR as you had falsely claimed.[101] I then responded by stating, "All I'm asking for is fair and nonprejudicial treatment and to be treated with an equal standard as all editors, and to be either presented with a reasonable explanation for my having been blocked or an apology issued for wrongful blocking. These are perfectly reasonable requests."[102] You responded yet again that insisting that your actions were right, despite the total lack of substantiation for your claim I had "edit warred", and despite your claim that I had violated 3RR having been pointed out to you as being demonstrably false, even saying that whether or not I actually violated 3RR -- the stated basis for the block -- was "immaterial"![103] To that, [User:Frederico1234] replied (emphasis added): "I agree that a block for edit warring might have been appropriate. But you did erred when presenting it as a case of 3RR violation when it clearly wasn't. The offender deserves to know what he did wrong. This case hasn't been handled very well."

All of this clearly demonstrates your extreme prejudice towards me, which I move should disqualify you from judging in the case of my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does nothing of the sort. It does show that I blocked you for edit warring, which you were, and which everyone has agreed to except for yourself. You can post a thousand screeds, and it still won't change the fact that you were edit warring on

Six Day War and you deserved to be blocked. Enigma^msg 05:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm interested in the facts, not your unsubstantiated opinions, and not your demonstrably false claims. JRHammond (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, let's have some facts. 1)Under the Wikipedia definition, you were edit warring. 2)Every administrator who commented about the block agreed with it. 3)You were blocked three more times after the block I made, by two other admins. 4)You were warned by yet another admin to quit it with the personal attacks. 5)Despite your claims to the contrary, you repeatedly reverted on the

WP:TE. Those are all facts. No demonstrably false claims to be found. Enigma^msg 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

The facts are precisely as I stated them above, every single point the accuracy of which anyone here can verify for themselves, and the bottom line is that your claim that I had committed "edit warring" was based entirely on the claim that I had committed "a clear violation of WP:3RR", which was demonstrably false, as was pointed out to you not only by myself, but also by two other admins, one of whom concluded: "I agree that a block for edit warring might have been appropriate. But you did erred when presenting it as a case of 3RR violation when it clearly wasn't. The offender deserves to know what he did wrong. This case hasn't been handled very well.. JRHammond (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. The block was for edit warring or 3RR, as stated in your block log. As for your quote, you attribute it to an admin, when in reality, it came from Frederico, who is certainly not an admin. Please stick to the facts. Saying stuff like you've never edited

Six Day War and that Frederico is an admin displays a disturbing lack of knowledge. The admins who commented on it, supported the block. And I should remind you again that you've been blocked three other times, and none of those blocks were issued by me. Enigma^msg 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Enigma, I don't think you are allowed to block someone for a personal attack against youself. - BorisG (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An admin can block for any personal attacks, against himself or otherwise. What I think you're referring to is that it's generally discouraged for an admin to block a user venting about a block on their talk, and to allow for an outsider to make the block if necessary. Enigma^msg 03:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I do not know the the policies and traditions very well, but common sense suggests that it would be ill-advised for an admin to block a user for personal attack against themselves, if only because it is hard for them to judge this objectively. It is much better that this is done by a third party. Ditto for threats to do so. Respectfully. - BorisG (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ruslik0

I think the presence of JRHammond on the talk page of

• [104]
• [105]
• [106]

--Mbz1 (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current ban on me is explicitly a ban "from editing Six-Day War and its talk page". Since this ban was imposed, and while it is under appeal, I have not edited the Six Day War article or its talk page, and therefore, ipso facto, I have not done anything to violate the ban, as you are here trying to suggest. Additionally, there are no Wikipedia guidelines forbidden editors from engaging in discussion on users' talk pages for the purpose of improving articles. Now, if you think something I've stated elsewhere constitutes some kind of violation of Wikipedia policy, you are welcome to quote me on the offending statement and explain in what way it violates policy, or if you think there is any error in fact or logic in the arguments I've presented in a good faith effort to see improvements made to the article, you're welcome to point it out. JRHammond (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying the debate on the article you've been banned from editing (and getting into disagreements) onto the talkpage of others is clearly

talk) 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Result of the appeal by User:JRHammond

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

The ban strikes me as inappropriate, given Wgfinley's previous involvement; it should have been left to uninvolved editors, and is as such suspect. I recommend lifting the ban immediately, and presenting it to other admins for consideration. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article talk page from Talk:Six-Day War#Suez Crisis aftermath onwards, and I certainly agree that WgfinleyJRHammond's conduct is a problem. From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#2010 I gather the last ban was for 48 hours, so jumping up to indefinite is perhaps going too far. Although I respect what jpgordon is saying, I think I'd prefer to keep the ban in place, but shorten it to a week. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually after his 48 hour topic ban he got topic banned again for 2 weeks as well as blocked for 7 days. the next step up from this, surely is not a step down to a week. seems like there is only so far you can go before you reach the point of indef. 99.254.145.130 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a month? PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my note above. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on recent discussion with JRHammond on my talk page, I'm dropping my objections to the ban. In fact, I think it should be expanded so that JRHammond is banned from discussing the article on other pages. Regarding the question of uninvolved, I think we've got to the stage where a more detailed statement is required. ArbCom have recently given some relevant rulings, however I think a greater amount of clarity is required. For example if an admin blocks a user, and the block is overturned, does that make the admin involved? How about if just a warning is overturned? In addition, the question of whether admins should edit the article to revert changes made against consensus perhaps should be reviewed. I'm not sure whether this should be clarified by the community, or we should request clarification from ArbCom. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the one-month ban of JRH from

Wgfinley imposed the talk-page ban which we are discussing here. A decision by admins to lift the ban would be a vote to have JRH continue 'doing his thing' at Talk:Six-Day War, which looks like an invitation for more tendentious editing. If the consensus here favors JRH's ban, I suggest that admins consider whether it might need extending to the entire topic of Israel's military actions and related UN resolutions, in all Wikipedia spaces including user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]