Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:03, 7 September 2010

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Nishidani

No action taken, Nishidani is cautioned to mind the borders of his ban.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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: [1]

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

[2] Commenting on I/P related topic
[3] Commenting on I/P related topic
[4] 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 (block, topic ban or 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.[5] 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 User:ברוקולי's use of the signature "Broccoli". There already is a user:Broccoli and it should not appear that this user has anything to do with User:ברוקולי's actions.--Peter cohen (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?--Peter cohen (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 [6]. Nishidani was not blocked, when he added I/P related cartoon [7].--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 [8] 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 [9] 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 User:Scott MacDonald at least for the time being, I've reduced my activity, (including delaying working with someone to draw up the history of an editor whose activity has looked suspiciously anti-Semitic,) another editor has put up a notice on their talk page stating that they are currently disillusioned with Wikipedia. Editors under this sort of attack from someone acting in such bad faith need to be shown support or the project suffers. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues I've also shown you support when you were being wikistalked and have tried to chase up SPIs that were being slow. (I'm glad to see that you've felt up to returning BTW.) I feel that Nishidani's actions were intended to show me support when I was being subject to the repercussions of what he saw as similarly malicious conduct. And therefore I don't think his actions should be treated as an ordinary violation of an editing restriction.--Peter cohen (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 [10], clear comment on another user's talk page about Jewish Defense Force. --WGFinley (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:GAME. --WGFinley (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. --WGFinley (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

174.112.83.21

User warned on talk page, SPI case filed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

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

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or 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 User:Breein1007 and that he has decided to edit as an IP because of all the warnings, blocks etc he got with his main account so he is now editing with an IP so he can behave in whatever way he wants, edit warring and incivility.

Comments such as this:

A user asks: "What makes Israel a developed country?" "I think the proper term to describe it is developing." [11]

Breeins/174.112.83.21 response: "hahahahahahahahahaha says the guy from jordan. is this meant to be a joke?" and then ads it again: [12]

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: [13]

Breein has made posts in hebrew:[14] IP also makes posts in hebrew: [15]

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

Breein was notified of Arbcom in 18 november 2009 [16]

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: [17]

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:174.112.83.21's edit history against 500 of User:Breein1007's past edits.

I didnt' find many matches. Both accounts worked on Jerusalem, MV Mariam, Rawabi, User talk:Ynhockey,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 WP:SPI. Unless someone objects I will close and ask it be filed there. --WGFinley (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:JRHammond

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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 WP:UNINVOLVED).

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:[18]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [19]

Statement by User:JRHammond

User:Wgfinley exercises extreme prejudice against me. He has previously violated WP:OUTING by posting personal information about me.[20] He has previously blocked me on spurious pretexts, leading to my appeal and the block being lifted.[21] And he has otherwise continually harassed me, including by threatening to ban me on the basis that I was contributing to the Talk page after his previous ban on me had expired and accusing me of edit warring when I couldn't even edit the article if I wanted to, as it is under protection![22] His pretexts in this case are equally spurious. Examining his stated reasons for the ban:

Multiple calls from multiple editors and admins have been made to you to collaborate. Instead, you have gone right back to tendentious editing on the article's talk page and, despite being previously blocked for making edits when you were banned, you came right back with over 100 edits in just a couple days, vowed to continue making protected page change requests even though an admin told you that you were abusing it or as you feel necessary .

(1) Ad hominem arguments are no basis for a ban. User:Wgfinley grossly mischaracterizes me here. He insinuates that I have been unwilling to collaborate, but offers nothing to support that contention, which I reject absolutely. I have gone through enormous efforts to try to discuss issues with other editors. In fact, I have practically begged other editors to participate and express their approval/disapproval of certain edits I've proposed in an effort to get others involved in an attempt to improve the article, e.g.:[23] He characterizes my contributions to the talk page as "tendentious", but again offers no substantiation for that charge, which I reject absolutely. I stand by all my expressions of concern over certain content I have sought to improve with what I contend are perfectly reasonable recommended edits that are in total compliance with WP:NPOV and other relevant Wikipedia guidelines.

(2) User:Wgfinley would have people believe I have openly defied an administrator by pronouncing my intention to abuse the "editprotected" template. This charge is absolutely baseless. Here is the exchange to which he refers: User:Amatulic told me:

There seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the editprotected template. Here is how it's supposed to work: 1. Propose an edit to the community here (not to an administrator via editprotected) 2. Present your rationale, and request input from others to modify your proposed text. 3. Other editors give you feedback, perhaps suggesting their own alternatives. 4. Eventually a consensus is reached. If no consensus is reached, stop here or go back to step 1. 5. Only then is it appropriate to place an editprotected tag on the page, with the consensus version proposed.

To which I responded:

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.[24]

Anyone may verify that I did indeed do exactly as the admin had outlined before employing the template. The whole premise of User:Wgfinley's pretext here is thus completely spurious. I had used the template in accordance with the guidelines given, and I said I would continue to employ the template in compliance with its intended purpose, contrary to what User:Wgfinley would have people believe with his deliberate mischaracterization.

(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 User:Wgfinley suggests, that extensive contributions to the Talk page and laborious efforts to improve the article ("100 edits in just a couple days", which is hyperbole, but, yes, I've been highly active) constitute a reason for an indefinite ban? User:Wgfinley continues with his stated pretexts:

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'". User:Wgfinley is being totally disingenuous. It was improper usage of the template I said was "unreasonable", which was very clear from my statement. The context: I pointed out a problem with the article and offered what I maintain to be an uncontroversial solution to resolve it. The proposed fix remained for a number of days and I explicitly stated my intent to employ the template to have the edit made, calling upon others to approve or state their objections, if any. After no objections were raised, I utilized the template. It was deactivated because of a misunderstanding by User:MSGJ. As this admin suggested I wait for an extended period of time, I, agreeing and complying with his request, did not reactivate the template. [25] Later, User:Amatulic expressed the following:

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.[26]

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?[27]

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.[28]. Moreover, User:Amatulic's suggestion that I "won't find an administrator on Wikipedia who will agree to a request to edit a contentious article without clear positive evidence of consensus" is a baseless opinion. First, the article may be contentious, but my proposed edit is not. Second, 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.[29]

Thus, here is an admin, User:MSGJ who clearly shares my view on the proper and reasonable usage of the template, that directly contradicts User:Amatulic's position and demonstrates the fallacy of his argument, all of which also demonstrates incontrovertibly that this entire premise for User:Wgfinley's ban on this count is wholly spurious. Continuing:

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. User:Wgfinley is again being disingenuous. What I stated on numerous occasions is that people were relying on ad hominem argumentation, which they were. User:Wgfinley's misunderstanding of what an ad hominem argument is does not constitute a reasonable basis for an indefinite ban, any more than my repeated observations that others, rather than addressing the facts and logic of my argument(s), instead have attempted to appeal to supposed prejudice on my part. It's a fact that others did so, and this is, by definition, ad hominem argumentation. I've repeatedly requested other editors refrain from employing such logical fallacies in their responses, and instead address the issues I've raised substantively. My doing so does not constitute any basis whatsoever for an indefinite ban.

In sum, User:Wgfinley has yet again[30][31] offered entirely spurious pretexts for his ban, which is all the more unreasonable in that it is indefinite. I request that the ban be lifted, and I further request that action be taken to prevent User:Wgfinley from harassing me further with baseless accusations and banning/attempting to ban me on spurious pretexts consisting of dishonest, false, and otherwise misleading characterizations.

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."[32]

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).[33]

(2) I proposed a completely uncontroversial edit which to this very moment still has not received a single objection. [34]

(3) I observed that an existing paragraph violates WP:NPOV by presenting information from only one side to the conflict, to the exclusion of the opposite viewpoint from the other parties to the conflict, as well as 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. [35]

I've further examined Wikipedia guidelines on "Disruptive Editing", which is principle among the things I've been charged with here. User:Wgfinley is prima facie abusing his authority. This page states that:

"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[36] As a matter of fact, the only two editors to even RESPOND to my use of the template were User:MSGJ, who said he would make the edit after given a bit more time, and 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."[37] 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

User:Mbz1 states: "I have got an impression that User:JRHammond is using the words "ad hominem " way too often, and in response to practically every argument." (1) Mbz1 seems to have a personal issue with me, and he picked up the torch from Wgfinley in violating WP:OUTING in posting information personally identifying me.[38] (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).[39] 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.[40]

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.[41] 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.[42] Having done so, I again corrected the unsourced and false assertion to the contrary, this time, to satisfy the objection, including those additional sources. [43]

An anonymous editor (IP only) then reverted my fix, with the edit summary stating "revert 1RR violation".[44] (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.[45]

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.[46] 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.[47]

It comes down to a simple question: Which edit was more appropriate and helped to improve the article? Whose actions here demonstrate a good faith effort to have this article read fairly and accurately?:

(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.[48]

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. [49]

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 User:Ling.Nut objected to at compromise solution proposed by User:BorisG, which I approved of. I saw no reason that the false statement should be allowed to remain in the article while the discussion continued on a replacement, so employed the template to have it removed. The first time I requested the edit, it was disabled without the explanation that there was "no consensus". There was no consensus on a replacement; yet there was a consensus that the text in question was problematic. The request was not for a replacement, but for the problematic text to be removed until a consensus could be arrived on a replacement. That's a reasonable request. So I re-enabled it, observing these points, and requested that if it was again disabled, an explanation be provided. It was disabled again on the grounds that there was not a consensus on the replacement wording; but, again, my request was not to put the proposed replacement wording in, but merely to remove the text everyone agreed was problematic until such a replacement could be agreed upon. So I re-enabled it and requested that the next admin who looked at it actually take the time to know what the request actually is before making a decision. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and a perfectly reasonable expectation with regard to the use of the template. Amatulic then granted that request, and rightly so. As he observed when he did so: "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." That was the right and reasonable course of action. Please remember, the heart of the matter here is improving the article, which this edit did by removing false information. The whole purpose of Wikipedia guidelines is summed up in 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. --WGFinley (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outing Accusation

This user edits using his real name (as I do), on its face he has outed himself. There was an article he posted on one of his websites that I thought could be seen as canvassing in the comments section with its references to Wikipedia as well as its numerous references to his own original research on the subject of the Wikipedia in question. I thought he should disclose this to the editors of the article as he was frequently being accused of original research. There's no outing here, it's off-wiki material leading to on-wiki behavior which has been covered in previous Arb cases.

Involved

Regarding JP's statement below, I am most assuredly not involved (emphasis mine):

One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or article purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvement are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting on the article, editor, or dispute either in an administrative role or in an editorial role. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about communal norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches, do not make an administrator 'involved'.

I've only had administrative action on the article, nothing more. JRH has gone through at least 3 admins before me and has shown a willingness to admin shop. Are we going to allow him to wheel war or are we going to allow admins who are not involved in editing the article continue to remediate (at length if necessary) as clearly outlined in the policy? The number of admins who will take up the mop on P-I articles is few as it is and this would make it worse. --WGFinley (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Length

I picked indefinite as JRH has shown no intention of changing his behavior. His last block was for intentionally violating an article ban[50] to do a tendentious edit[51]. What did he do as soon as he came back? Started repeatedly submitting the same edit [52] using the {{editprotected}} template to admin shop. [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] . Length seems to be of no consequence to him because we have the wrong version. --WGFinley (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

There's too much in this appeal already, if other uninvolved admins have questions for me I'll be happy to answer. --WGFinley (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:BorisG

Over the years I made very minor contributions to Six-Day War and its talk page Talk:Six-Day War, and as far as I recall, User:JRHammond has always been active there. When I read the article Wikipedia:Tendentious editing which an administrator cited yesterday, my first thought was that it was written about User:JRHammond. He is extremely knowldegeable and his edits are usually well sourced. But taken together, his many edits reveal a clear pattern of systematic bias (in my view). Of course User:JRHammond will never agree with this, but if users look at statements by both User:JRHammond and User:Wgfinley, and at the discussion page in question Talk:Six-Day War, they can judge for themselves. BTW it's the first time I ever comment on an AE case, so I apologise in advance if I have done something wrong, and will be happy to modify or remove my statement if instructed. - BorisG (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 is not an uninvolved user. This is correct, and confirms 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Amatulic

I came across the Six-Day War article during the course of administrative backlog patrolling, where I ran across an {{editprotected}} request. 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. In the course of my investigation I discovered prior administrative actions regarding JRHammond including a previous ArbCom decision. At that point I decided to engage myself as a mediator, not taking sides in the debate, but establishing some ground rules for progress.

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. 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. 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. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup to JRHammond's response to this comment

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.

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 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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:Six-Day War. Although my involvement was administrative, much of my statement above described my own history on that talk page, so it seemed out of place to post it in the "Result of the appeal". ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JRHammond's "facts"

I was going to ignore the latest diatribe, as it's hardly worth addressing, because the talk page speaks for itself. I find it curious that JRHammond chooses to attack every statement I make, in spite of the fact I have been impartial, even accepting one of JRHammond's edit requests, and exhorting others to weigh in regarding another so we could have consensus and move on.

Fact: The time stamps of the comments show conclusively that JRHammond approached MSGJ after I requested he withdraw his editprotected request. I'm certainly willing to assume good faith and accept JRHammond's word that this timing is coincidental and no canvassing was intended, and that my observation of his past behavior coupled with the suspicious timing gave me the impression of admin shopping.

Fact: Your request for my withdraw of the Suez Crisis was on the faulty basis that it had "started a long debate".[58]. That was incorrect, as you well know, and as I politely pointed out to you at the time.[59] 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]."[60]

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 applies to edits made to articles, not to talk pages. Even assuming I am biased (a suggestion I reject), this policy states: "Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." 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. 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 Wikipedia:Tendentious editing which others have observed is descriptive of JRHammond's conduct, but unfortunately I have seen no evidence yet that he has read it and taken it to heart. Tendentious editors can, and do, get banned for being tendentious. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TE applies to edits made to articles, not to talk pages. Even assuming I am biased (a suggestion I reject), this policy states: "Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." 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.

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. " [61] 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 User:Wgfinley, while acting in good faith in order to enable progress on the article, should have left this task to another admin due to his own previous involvement (the erroneous block, the outing ("JRHammond" is not his full name, so it was indeed outing)). --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 [62]
16 July @ 04:58 [63]
16 July @ 15:13 [64]
16 July @ 17:45 [65]

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]

Statement by Jiujitsuguy

I’ve had my share of interactions with JRHammond and the impression I got was one of a guy who could never admit that he’s wrong. I found his rambling wall-to-wall texts, filled with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to be, dizzying. He is unable to accept any form of criticism or sanction. By way of example, I got a bit aggressive with my editing on the Six-Day war and WgFinley put me back in line with a 48-hr article ban. I accepted my sanction and moved along. JRHammond received the same sanction shortly thereafter and instead of complying with the ban, defied it, drawing a stiffer sanction of a one-week block and a two-week article ban. Then he appealed with his usual wall-to wall text, denying any wrong-doing and blaming everyone else but himself. I would support shortening the article ban in exchange for a promise of good behavior but doubt that this will be forthcoming from this editor.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ling.Nut

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.
User:JRHammond's convictions in the topic area inspire an editing style that acts as a very real barrier to cooperative editing. This makes it difficult (or even exhausting) for others to participate, creating a real barrier to the painstaking but cooperative approach inherent in editing any highly controversial topic in Wikipedia. His general demeanor varies from cooperative to combative, depending on the point being argued, its real-word consequences, and on its relationship to JR's perception of Truth. Whether it is deliberate WP:GAME and WP:PUSH or merely a case of zealous editing for Truth in the immediate present and at all costs [disregarding the cost to Wikipedia's editing processes], it does indeed at the very least tread on the warning track around WP:TE. In either case, I feel that JR needs to back up and rethink the social contract inherent in his voluntary decision to accept a role as an ongoing Wikipedia editor. It seems he perceives the process as a series of battles having winners and losers. His desire to defend his perceptions of real-world truth needs to be moderated by a full understanding and acceptance of the roles, rules, guidelines and obligations involved in working within Wikipedia's editing framework and (perhaps especially) culture.• 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:

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.
I am trying to AGF about the wall of words. It could be WP:GAME and WP:PUSH, or it could just be JR's personal style of communication. I AGF and assume the latter. That doesn't change the fact, however, that it is distinctly counterproductive if he is editing in good faith (conversely, it is an extremely productive and effective approach if he is not editing in good faith, that is, if he is WP:PUSH).
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.
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 social contract and their obligations to the greater community. It's sad, but true. I think (or at least, I diligently AGF) that JR sees himself as exercising his inalienable personal rights. Unfortunately, he is doing so in a way that others (many others, apparently) perceive as tendentious editing, creating a noxious atmosphere, admin shopping, evading guidelines, and driving away away editors.• 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]

Your questions seem to be suggesting I don't engage other editors in reasonable discussion. You and I have cooperated in the past. We don't agree on everything, obviously, but I've appreciated our collective efforts to improve the article -- and working together we did improve the article, ENORMOUSLY. And that is not only my opinion, but was widely shared among other editors. And I credit that mostly to your own efforts. You can answer all your own questions solely on the basis of my cooperation with you, and my praise for your work on the article.

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 in any of my edits or proposed edits whatsoever. On the contrary, I maintain that it is demonstrably true that my edits have corrected violations 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:NPOV and 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 User:Ruslik0 objecting on the grounds: "That UNEF acted to prevent fedayeen infiltration (from Gaza) is discussed at length in Middle East - UMEF I" So lets rationally examine that objection, also. Had I ever denied that fedayeen raids had been conducted on Israel? No. Does this objection address my concern over non-compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT? No. It simply does not address the issue, or the concern I raised, or point to any fault in my proposed solution. Moreover, check that source for yourself. You will find that fedayeen raids are explicitly referred to only once, and that was in the context of 1955, prior to the 1956 war! Elsewhere, it refers to raids, but in the context of attacks from both sides. And this source itself demonstrates that my concern over WP:NPOV and 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.

This is the situation. And for trying to get people to actually look at this, and listen to what my concern is and address it, I have been banned. Try to understand how frustrating this is for me. I don't think this is asking for too much to expect people to be reasonable and to discuss things rationally, but I am constantly disappointed with regard to that expectation. If my frustration resulting from this comes across sometimes in my comments on the Talk page in a way that seems offensive to you, I sincerely apologize. But I'm human too, and I have a reasonable basis to be frustrated when such obstacles are placed in the way of making progress towards the goal that I know you personally share of maintaining and improving the quality of the Six Day War article.

So here is the basis for my appeal: I've been banned on the basis of "tendentious" editing. WP:TE applies to editing articles, not commenting on Talk pages, so on that grounds alone this pretext for this ban is wholly spurious.

Even were it to apply to activity on the Talk page, however, the case made against me here depends upon demonstrably false and misleading statements and prejudicial remarks that assault my character not only without any substantiation, but with reckless disregard for the facts, such as Amatulic's false assertions that I went "admin shopping" to find somebody to implement my proposed edit (everyone here can verify the facts of what I've already said in this regard).

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".[66] 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 applies to a pattern of editing articles according to a clear bias in violation of WP:NPOV, and does not apply to discussion on the Talk page. I would challenge anyone to present even a single edit I've made to the article that was biased and in violation of WP:NPOV, but that's a moot issue. As I have not edited the article, and as I couldn't even if I wanted to, as it is and long has been under protection, I move for immediate acceptance of my appeal to lift the ban, on the grounds of a spurious pretext for the ban in the first place. 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]

JRHammond, not sure why you are commenting here, rather than in your section; maybe you've run out of space :). But while we are here, you are quoting from WP:TE very selectively. Here are a few other selected quotes that are also pertinent here:

* 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]

[67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] 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, WP:TE could be describing JRHammond. His approach is a battleground approach, and simply won't play nice with any editors. He will not brook any disagreement with anything he says whatsoever. His presence on the Six Day War article is not helpful, and this can be seen from the article talk page. As I said above: Perhaps he can edit constructively elsewhere. Perhaps not. Either way, it would behoove us to find out. Enigma^msg 01:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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."[73]

Frederico1234 in fact said: I can also confirm that JRHammond did not violate 3RR.[74]

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".[75] 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,[76], 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..."[77]. 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,[78][79]. Yet you once again responded with the not only unsubstantiated but demonstrably false claim, "You very clearly did violate 3RR..."[80] So I responded by requesting that you substantiate that claim, noting that you would be unable to do so.[81] 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..."[82] and User:Frederico1234 stated, "I can also confirm that JRHammond did not violate 3RR.",[83] you still insisted that I had been "edit warring", offering nothing by way of evidence to support that claim,[84] and still failing to address the fact that I had not violated 3RR as you had falsely claimed.[85] 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."[86] 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"![87] 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 Six Day War article, which fits in well with 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 Six-day war has not been constructive so far. I do not think that statements like That's your argument? On the basis of its patent idiocy, your objection on the basis that a recommendation is not a recommendation is hereby dismissed or As your objection doesn't address that fundamental point, it is hereby dismissed. or Your lending of equal weight to Blum's totally baseless argument is unreasonable, and your objection on that basis must be dismissed. serve to achieve any consensus. I think JRHammond far too often dismisses other viewpoints as nonsense or ad hominen without any reason. I have not edited recently due to traveling, but when I returned I found that JRHammond flooded the talk page with editprotect requests hoping that some passing by admin would entertain at least some of them. I think that the indefinite topic ban should stand. Ruslik_Zero 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation

A topic banned user cannot be engaged in any discussion on the topic. It is what topic ban is about. Yet User:JRHammond keeps pushing the editors on their talk pages using them as the talk page of the article. This kind of behavior proves yet another time that the ban should not be lifted, and that the user should get blocked for a day or two to cool down.

--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 gaming the system and canvassing. This is troubling when coupled with the fact you've previously demonstrated you will willfully disregard bans. Further, I see you have moved over to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 now and started further disagreements there. UN242 is the centerpiece of the edits that have gotten you banned, then blocked, then banned and is WP:GAME as well. You've already started your hostile style of discussion there.[91]. I haven't even touched your conduct on this appeal, which you should be afforded some leeway since you are banned but the way you have sought out anyone who has disagreed with you is not doing yourself any favors. This is all I'm going to say on this matter. --WGFinley (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 ~~Wgfinley~~JRHammond'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 Six-Day War and its talk page. JRHammond is so far a single-purpose account. Of his 447 Wikipedia edits, 234 are comments at Talk:Six-Day War. His wall-of-text postings seem to have exhausted the patience of the other editors at the talk page. He takes advantage of this silence to file editprotected requests, asserting that his changes ought to be made if no one responds. (To see the four examples of this, search Talk:Six-Day War for 'editprotected'). He stopped only on September 3, after 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]

The above is approaching 125kb, at least a third of which is from the petitioner, who I refer to WP:TLDR. Reading through this request, I am not inclined to overturn the ban at this point, and it doesn't appear that the consensus among admins is leaning that way either. If JRHammond wishes to refile a request to overturn the ban, he is instructed to limit his statement to no more than 1000 words and is also advised that uncontroversial participation in other areas of Wikipedia will be seen favorably.

If an admin feels that an expansion of the ban is warranted, they are free to do so even though I closed this request. NW (Talk) 03:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:JRHammond

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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 WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: JRHammond (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – JRHammond (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite ban from editing Six Day War article and participating on Six Day War talk page.[92]

Administrator imposing the sanction: Wgfinley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by User:JRHammond

(1) I was banned on the stated pretext of "tendentious editing". Amended: "Tendenitious Editing" is defined as "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." User:Wgfinley does not even attempt to substantiate that my editing "is partisan, biased or skewed" or that it "does not conform to the neutral point of view" in his stated argument for my ban, and he would be hard-pressed to do so. Moreover, WP:TE states explicitly: "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." WP:TE applies to editing of articles, not participation on Talk pages. I have not edited the article in question, and could not if I wanted to, as it is protected. I therefore further move that the ban be overturned on the basis of a spurious pretext.

(2) The imposing admin, User:Wgfinley has demonstrated a pattern of abuse of authority and prejudice towards me, including previously blocking me on a spurious pretext (successfully overturned by appeal, with the deciding admin stating: "I see nothing in JRHammond's comments at that talk page that warrant a block, let alone a one week block, and particularly a "cool down" block.")[93] and violating WP:OUTING by posting personal information about me I did not share with others myself.[94] Given this pattern of behavior on the part of the admin, I move that the ban be overturned on the basis of prejudicial treatment.

(3) This current ban follows this pattern of abuse of authority. For example, User:Wgfinley alleges: 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". This is a gross wilfull and deliberate mischaracterization of the facts, and demonstrably so. User:Amatulic had arrived on the page and outlined the proper use of the template. Contrary to expressing that I "believe proper usage of" the template "is 'unreasonable'", I responded to observe that I had followed that procedure exactly, and what I actually 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." User:Amatulic replied, "JRHammond, I am gratified that you have agreed to follow the procedure I outlined..."[95] User:Amatulic went on to express his personal view that it was not enough that no objections were raised to the proposed edit for which I'd employed the template, arguing that "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." I disagreed with that interpretation of its use and observed the fact that I had already come to an understanding with another admin, User:MSGJ, who had already, in fact, agreed to implement my requested edit if it remained unopposed after more time was allowed to give others opportunity to review it ("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.")[96] It was this situation that User:Wgfinley deliberately tries to mischaracterize as some kind of rebelliousness or "disruptive" behavior in an attempt to offer a pretext for this ban. Given User:Wgfinley's previous pattern of abuse of authority, along with such deliberate distortions of my comments as this, I reiterate that I move that the ban be overturned on the basis of demonstrably prejudicial treatment. JRHammond (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:PhilKnight stated: "JRHammond's talk page conduct has been disruptive, and he has yet to accept that he needs to modify his approach. Accordingly, I consider the indefinite article + talk page ban to be within admin discretion, although it's longer than I would've applied." (1) PhilKnight has not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal, and (2) PhilKnight has not substantiated his claim that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive" with even a single example.

User:CIreland stated: "I concur with this assessment." (1) CIreland has not substantively addressed the basis for my appeal, and (2) CIreland has not substantiated the claim that my "talk page conduct has been disruptive" with even a single example.

User:EdJohnston stated: "The reopened appeal by JRHammond suggests he has learned nothing at all from the last one. His mission on Wikipedia is (seemingly) to pound away until he can force his views into the Six-Day War article. I support the indefinite ban from article + talk page. You would think that JRH could manage to occasionally say *something* diplomatic that could lighten up the image that we have of him, but that never occurs. 'Harmonious' is not a word in his vocabulary." (1) EdJohnston has not substatively addressed the basis for my appeal, and (2) I reject this characterization of my work, which is a wholly unsubstantiated opinion that completely disregards the actual merit of the improvement I've tried to make to the article -- yes, which I have fought hard for, and rightfully so. As for the suggestion I should be "diplomatic" and "harmonious", that is very difficult to do when others refuse to substantively address my arguments on the basis of the facts and logic contained therein, preferring to make unsubstantiated and prejudicial statements against my character (such as EdJohnston remarks here), which falls within the definition of the fallacy of ad hominem, and when I am constantly harassed by User:Wgfinley and banned or blocked on spurious pretexts, such as those underlying this current ban, the facts of which none of the admins here have yet to address (see above).

Look, if I've done something admins think was inappropriate, I'd be happy to acknowledge my error and apologize to anyone I may have offended. However, all of these judgments by these admins simply seem to assume the accuracy and legitimacy of User:Wgfinley's stated pretexts for this ban, which I have shown indisputably to be spurious, such as by the fact that Wgfinley felt it necessary to manufacture a deliberate falsehood in order to support his case for why I should be banned; and they offer nothing beyond what Wgfinley has already offered by way of substantiation for these characterizations. This is completely unreasonable. Is it too much to ask that admins judging my appeal be reasonable and actually substantively address the basis for my appeal? Is it too much to ask that if accusations against my character and behavior are to be offered as a basis to deny my appeal that they actually be substantiated with at least a single example? It is not. JRHammond (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE!!! ALL INVOLVED EDITORS, PLEASE READ THIS!!!

Once again, all I'm asking for is a single example to be presented to substantiate the claims made against me of even a single instance where I did something in violation of Wikipedia policy that would warrant this ban. I can't very well say, "I'm sorry, I won't do that again" if I don't know what it is I've done that would warrant my appeal being denied. And it goes without saying that if nobody can present even a single example of an instance where I did something warranting this ban that my appeal should be approved. This is a perfectly reasonable request, and it is perfectly unreasonable for those judging this case to refuse it. JRHammond (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WGFinley

Fellow admins, we have the wrong version.

Thank you.

--WGFinley (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Phil and CIreland's comments below, they were what I was thinking of when I worded the ban:[97]

Tendentious editing has no place on Wikipedia and it is especially unwelcome on articles involving the Palestine-Israel conflict. I will be willing to consider lifting this ban if you state you can work with other editors and avoid tendentious editing. Until then you are banned from editing Six-Day War and its talk page.

WP:OFFER He's shown he can't drop things and move on in this case, it doesn't mean he can't do it elsewhere and it doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain lifting the ban if he demonstrated he could work with others elsewhere. After all this is an indefinite ban on this particular article and not the topic (although some kind of restriction there may be warranted) and not his account. I think since all of his editing has been restricted to this article up until a few days ago it has caused most of the problem. --WGFinley (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, isn't indef too harsh? - BorisG (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indef = earn your way back, it is particularly used in cases where the editor has shown no intent on changing behavior thus far. --WGFinley (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also was working under the incorrect impression that "indefinite" meant "infinite". If it doesn't, then that is much better. • Ling.Nut 22:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, WP:OFFER. --WGFinley (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wgfinley, the underlying assumption of your above statements that I should "drop things and move on" regarding WP:OFFER is that I should acknowledge I've committed the faults you accuse me of, and yet the main basis for your ban is with regard to my proposed edit for the Suez Crisis section of the article[98], in which I committed no such wrong as you claim, such as that I had expressed that I "believe proper usage of the template is 'unreasonable'" with regard to that proposed edit, which I've already demonstrated is a willful and deliberate falsehood. Given your history of harassing me and given the fact that you felt it necessary to manufacture such a lie in order to support this current ban, I will gladly take my chances with the appeal rather than being intimidated under threat of punishment into acknowledging I've said and/or done things that I never said or did. JRHammond (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's observe the pattern: (1) Blocking me on a wholly spurious pretext, with the admin granting my appeal stating "I see nothing in JRHammond's comments at that talk page that warrant a block, let alone a one week block, and particularly a "cool down" block."[99]; (2) Posting personal information about me I had never revealed myself in direct violation of WP:OUTING.[100]; (3) Banning me for 48 hours on the basis that I had violated 1RR[101] when the facts were that: (a) an edit I made[102] was reverted by an anonymous IP editor on the basis it was not well sourced,[103] (b) I did not revert back to my original edit, but rather (c) added a great many authoritative sources in order to satisfy the raised objection;[104] (d) and, moreover, my edit improved the article by replacing an unsourced and demonstrably false statement with a very well sourced statement of fact; (4) Blocking me for 7 days and banning me for two weeks on the basis that I had violated my spurious 48 hour ban[105] when the facts were that: (a) My above noted improvement to the article was reverted by the same anonymous IP editor with no legitimate explanation and without discussion,[106], so I (b) restored my edit to prevent the unsourced and false statement from remaining in the article,[107], (c) all of which is in keeping with the the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines, the whole purpose and intent of which is to create a conducive environment for the improvement of articles,[108], which demonstrates further that you were merely "Utilizing the rules in a manner contrary to their principles", demonstrating clear disregard for the purpose and intent of the rules you feign to uphold; (5) telling me I "shouldn't be" contributing to the Talk page after my ban and block had expired and threatening to ban me again for "carrying the edit war from the article on to the talk page",[109] a reference to my having proposed a solution to a problematic passage in the article that was reviewed, approved, and implemented by an administrator;[110], (6) this current ban based on demonstrably false and misleading claims, and (7) issuing further veiled threats of punitive action against me on the basis that my comment "Accredited, it is not clear to me, because you commented on tangential matters and not on any perceived merits/demerits on your part of my proposed edit, so kindly just answer my question. Yes or no?" was "combative".[111] I rest my case. Perhaps it's you who needs to be banned, Wgfinley. JRHammond (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My word, WP:TL;DR. It's really not necessary to reply to each and every thought uttered that does not completely support you. Do you really think you are doing yourself any good individually calling out uninvolved admins and/or going to their talk pages to confront them there? Is there a single shred of any of the 5k written above that you haven't already said? WP:STICK! Saying I should be banned, you actually think THAT'S helpful? I should delete my entire section your conduct on both of these appeals has done nothing but affirmed my position. --WGFinley (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone here can verify the facts are precisely as I've stated them. It's instructive that you are either unwilling or unable to substantively address my argument for appeal. JRHammond (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass -- Telling someone they have bald tires and are about to go driving in the rain is not a threat, it's courteous warning. I courteously informed JRH that editing, in the same fashion, an article whose subject is the reason why he was banned on another article could resort in a topic ban. That's not a threat and it's already been suggested by others here. --WGFinley (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's get our facts straight, Guy. With regard to the incident in question, what Gatoclass actually said was: "Witness this latest exchange between JRH and WGFinley where WG again purports to find a "combative tone" possibly worthy of a new topic ban in this post. Nobody whose edits were subject to such a level of scrutiny and threats would be likely to maintain their equanimity for long." Which was a reference to your "courteous warning" that I could be further banned for such "combative" comments as this: "Accredited, it is not clear to me, because you commented on tangential matters and not on any perceived merits/demerits on your part of my proposed edit, so kindly just answer my question. Yes or no?" Which speaks for itself, and is instructive as to the spurious nature of this ban, and the spurious nature of the stated reasons for denying my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mbz1

The prior request was just closed by NE. Do we really need to go over this again? I believe the ban should be extended to be broadly construed, and the request should be closed. It is just a time wasting. As with all indefinite bans the next appeal could be filed in a year.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) The admin who closed it invited me to re-appeal ("If JRHammond wishes to refile a request to overturn the ban, he is instructed to limit his statement to no more than 1000 words..."). I did so according to the instruction given. (2) Your remark does not substantively address the argument for my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 06:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree my remark "does not substantively address the argument for your appeal" because I believe that filing appeal after appeal is an abuse of the right to appeal. There was a clear consensus (4 to 1) of uninvolved admins to leave your ban in place. That's why I see absolutely no ground for filing another appeal right away.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That opinion of yours is something you will have to take up with the admin who invited me to re-appeal, Mbz1. I would observe that any reasonable decision one way or the other must substantively address my argument for lifting the ban; conversely, any decision that does not do so would be unreasonable. JRHammond (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass will not be the sole person to close this appeal; it will be done by consensus among admins if we are to overturn the ban. Gatoclass' request is simply a request that other admins are not bound by, though they may choose to if they so wish. As for your larger concerns about Gatoclass' actions as an administrator, that is not for here, but for WP:RFC/U. NW (Talk) 11:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

So this is going to come across pretty mean to Gatoclass and it isn't meant to. He has been involved in essentially policing and commenting in the topic area for some time now. He has not done very well as an admin when it comes to taking care of what needs to be taken care of in my opinion. No offense meant at all since it is something you volunteer to do that is not expected to get any love out of. WGFinley has come in and started cleaning house. This has been to the point that I even said he could have gone about it a little nicer. However, we need an admin that will do that. The indefinite block was a little much but a lengthily break is totally necessary. Gatoclass has proven that he cannot make the tough decisions in this topic area so "I'd appreciate it if this appeal was not closed until I have had a chance to complete my review." shouldn't mean much. His opinion is of course more than welcome but more than one admin seeing a problem should not be overridden by another admin who has previously made decisions that negatively impacted the topic area.Cptnono (talk) 09:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gatoclass

I am currently working my way through JRHammond's contributions to both the Six-Day War article and the related talk page in order to try and make a judgement about this. I'd appreciate it if this appeal was not closed until I have had a chance to complete my review. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that true you are "currently working my way through JRHammond's contributions to both the Six-Day War article and the related talk page in order to try and make a judgement about this"? One could have thought that you've already done this before you've made this comment in the uninvolved administrators section BTW.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh give it a rest Mbz, please. Gatoclass (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gato, you do know that this is an usual arguments, for ones, who have nothing better to respond, don't you? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cptnono

OT thread relating to personal attacks allegedly made during this appeal.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I consider Cptnono's remarks regarding my competence as an administrator above to be slanderous given their total lack of substantiation and therefore request their removal. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the removal request indicates the lack of competence complained of. Just let it go. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I may not be competent enough for your liking, but I am smart enough to recognize baiting when I see it and to avoid giving you the response you deserve. But you only discredit yourself with such comments. Gatoclass (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not baiting, but if you chose to interpret that way then that's your choice. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not baiting to call someone incompetent and then tell them to just suck it up? No, sorry, that is just classic trolling, and I think most people here will recognize it as such. It's certainly not remotely conducive to collegiate relations. I've never even exchanged a word with you before. Who do you think you are to barge in here and call me incompetent? I think you have a lot to learn about Wikiquette, either that or you already know the rules but just don't give a damn. But either way I think you've already had more of my attention than you've rightfully earned. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are to barge in here and call me incompetent? oh right, so I have to be somebody. My apologies. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to be somebody. You only have to be somebody if you want somebody's respect. Hope that's cleared things up for you. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see why anyone would think that being somebody gives them respect. But I'm just a dumbass nobody, I guess, who believes in WP:COI. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, please! If I were involved in a conversation like this, User:Wgfinley would ban me for Tendentious Editing! ;) User:Gatoclass, I for one am appreciative that you are actually willing to take the time to examine the issue. Whatever judgment you come to, thanks for actually taking the time to do so. JRHammond (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is supposed to be a Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:JRHammond. I am not sure if these esteemed admins here consider themselves uninvolved editors. But it is certainly not about the appeal by User:JRHammond. I suggest this personal exchange needs to be moved elsewhere, while any relevant comments by involved editors (admins or not) need to be in the section above. I am not comfortable adding a comment in a wrong place, but if it is continued like this, we will end up with the same mess as was just closed. - BorisG (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to PhilKnight

Phil, as far as I can tell, JRH has only been editing since July and only made a handful of edits to mainspace - no more than about thirty I think. I agree his talk page behaviour has been less than exemplary at times, but given his inexperience I am concerned at the somewhat draconian nature of this remedy. I am also concerned at the fact that he has been pursued by one admin in particular who has slapped a series of blocks and bans on him often for quite trivial and at times patently imaginary offences, and who still appears bent on dogging his footsteps in a manner that looks very much to me like harassment. Witness this latest exchange between JRH and WGFinley where WG again purports to find a "combative tone" possibly worthy of a new topic ban in this post. Nobody whose edits were subject to such a level of scrutiny and threats would be likely to maintain their equanimity for long.

JRH obviously has a lot to learn in regards to acceptable conduct but everyone has a learning curve, there are many users on the I-P pages who have edited far more tendentiously and for much longer periods and escaped any sanction whatever, and JRH at least appears to be intelligent, erudite and reasonably well informed. That doesn't necessarily mean he will become a productive editor but it does indicate that he has the potential to make a worthwhile contribution. And I don't want to see a potentially useful editor unfairly discouraged. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I have a suggestion. As you can see, JRH is adamant that he has done nothing wrong, contrary to your comment above. It appears that you are sympathetic to him. If you are, then perhaps you are best placed to explain to JRH (here or on his talk page or elsewhere) what the problem is, and more importantly, convince him to change his approach. If he does, then we will all welcome him. But if he persists, then the article in question is best left without it. It has enough problems without him. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ling.Nut

JR has occasionally worked cooperatively, especially in the early days of our work on the article's WP:LEDE. He bears a particular POV, and is amazingly tireless and unyielding in his defense of it. It is the "tireless and unyielding" bit that grates on people. It is indeed unproductive, because it does indeed wear people down.
There is simply a fundamental disconnect going on here. There is a fundamental disconnect between the way that JR views this entire situation, including the proceedings in this forum, and the way neutral editors view it. [Here I must also note that there are several editors in this forum and on the article's talk page who bear an NPOV that is categorically opposed to JR's; I trust that uninvolved admins will make an effort to discover who those editors are, and discount their views accordingly]. JR seems to want to marshal arguments any time anyone voices an opinion different than his, supporting his arguments with facts, rather than interacting in order to investigate perceptions of other editors involved (which are sometimes valid). JR seems to live in a world where arguing in the formal sense (fact vs. fact) is the only approach to any problem. He operates in an environment in which there are winners and losers (including most especially, winning ideas and losing ideas).
He also is unable to let things rest and breathe a while, as per m:eventualism.
JR's tirelessness can occasionally be fruitful. Since he researches issues thoroughly (albeit in a biased manner), he often brings facts to the table that very definitely need to be included in the article. In fact, he is unquestionably a valuable contributor in that restricted sense. However, the problem is that he does not stop at bringing facts to the table; he tirelessly argues to prove to everyone that his facts always and everywhere supersede all others.
I was not aware (before now) that an indefinite ban is not the same as an infinite ban. It can be lifted, upon signs of altered behavior. I hope JR will take note of that fact.

Ling.Nut, (1) You are not substantively addressing the basis for my appeal, and you offer nothing by way of substantiation, beyond your own personal opinions, that would support the basis for this ban. (2) Said opinions of yours depend primarily upon the assumption that I am biased, yet you offer not a single example to substantiate that claim. Moreover, as WP:TE states, everyone has bias and bias is not a problem in editors, but in articles, and I maintain that all of my edits and proposed edits are perfectly in compliance with WP:NPOV (in fact, many corrected statements that violated NPOV). I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate otherwise. (3) Facts matter. Logic is applicable. Arguing vigorously for my positions by presenting well researched and factual information (as you yourself attest to) and sound logic is not something which warrants a ban. Neither is the expectation I have that other editors similarly support their positions by presenting factually and logically sound arguments, rather than resorting to ad hominem or other logical fallacies, unreasonable. (4) Your assumption that my behavior is in need of alteration is based solely upon the above unsubstantiated opinions and logical fallacies. If you want to convince me I've behaved inappropriately, you need to give me something to go on. You've given me nothing, and I stand by all my edits and all my contributions to the Talk page. Facts matter. Logic applies. I expect you and everyone else to be reasonable with me, and that is a reasonable expectation that is constantly disappointed,through no fault of my own. JRHammond (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm (all at the same time) a bit burned out on this discussion (and) very busy in real life so shouldn't even be here (and) putting up with on-wiki trouble over other articles and with other editors. My only observation about your facts (in the article, not in this forum) is that they are occasionally refuted by other reliable sources, yet you always and everywhere see that your sources supersede others. I am extremely hesitant to present diffs showing that edit from a POV, because I want to leave you a figleaf in order that you may continue editing (I hope), and leave our editing relationship a figleaf so that we may continue editing together... Moreover, I actually do not care about POV, as you accurately cite TE; almost every editor on that page is from either the pro-Israel or the pro-Arab camp. I care about how POV affects the editing process. I am looking forward to working with you again. I do not want to poison our working relationship. I know you will not believe this, but I am actually trying to help you (I know that may sincerely seem difficult to swallow – I really do). You suggest I have not pointed out the behaviors that are unacceptable; gosh, I thought I had done that repeatedly. I would be very happy to discuss anything and everything in other forums (after a cooling-down period). Right now, you are sitting at AE, and many folks want to ban you from the article. Rather than continuously arguing that those folks are wrong, why don't you ask them (in a non-challenging way and on other forums) how they believe you can modify your behavior to be more in line with community expectations? Work with the community rather than fighting against it. I am so sorry, I know that everything I say probably seems invalid to you because I am not putting up a counterpoint for each of your points.I am not being sarcastic or condescending or any negative thing at all when I say I am sorry; I am in fact actually and genuinely sorry. • Ling.Nut 05:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JRHammond, please re-read Ling.Nuts original statement. Receiving criticism is always hard, but this criticism is fair and made in good faith. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As are my replies. All I've requested is that if my appeal is to be denied that the basis for my appeal be substantively addressed and I be given a reason for this ban (one not based on deliberate falsehoods), substantiated with even just a single example of behavior on my part that violated Wikipedia policy as would warrant it! An short of that, my appeal should be granted. This is certainly not an unreasonable request! JRHammond (talk) 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut, you continue to make prejudicial statements against me (e.g. "you always and everywhere see that your sources supersede others") that you refuse to substantiate with even a single example. It hardly serves to make such remarks and then refuse to substantiate them on the basis that you "do not want to poison our working relationship", because doing so does just that. As for your suggestion that I ask in a non-challenging way how those sitting in judgment of me believe I can modify my behavior to be more in line with community expectations, first of all, this assumes I have done something wrong, which is prejudicial inasmuch as determining whether or not that is the case is what this appeal is about (and I have already demonstrated that the basis for this appeal is spurious, demonstrated by the demonstrable fact that Wgfinley felt it necessary to manufacture deliberate falsehoods to support the ban), and, secondly, I have repeatedly done just that, only to have that reasonable request either so far ignored or declined! [112][113][114][115][116] Seriously, is it too much to ask that if I am to be banned that a reason be given for that ban that is actually substantiated with a specific example of something I've posted that violated Wikipedia policy? I'm not the one being unreasonable here, Ling.Nut. JRHammond (talk) 05:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BorisG

I agree with everything Ling.Nut said. To put it in my own words, the problems with JRH's editing are:

Style (wall-to-wall text, repeating the same arguments over and over again).
Presenting his own opinion as 'truth'.
Attempts to use editprotect template without consensus.
Above all, this is a single-purpose account.

I will not be giving any examples, because anyone can see it (and form their own opinion which may be different from mine) just by browsing Six-day war talk page for 5 minutes. I will not express any opinions regarding the ban, because I do not have enough relevant experience.

(1) I agree I do often have to repeat myself, because the fact is that others, yourself included, refuse to substantively address my arguments (e.g. Suez Crisis proposed edit). This is not an offense anyhow. (2) I have never presented my own opinion as fact; I do however, fully support my opinions with facts. This is not an offense anyhow. (3) As for the editprotect template, I employed it for precisely 2 edits, and I did so properly: (a) For the first, I'll let the words of the admin who accepted my request speak for themselves: "I see no issue removing contentious material when the parties concerned agree that the material should eventually be replaced with something more neutral." (b) For the second, I outlined my proposal, clearly stated my intent to employ the template, and called on editors to state any objections if they had any. After several days, no objections were raised, so I did so, in full compliance with the template instructions. (4) Yes. It was numerous problems I saw with the Six Day War article that compelled me to join the process. I don't have time for other articles, so I stick mostly with this one. I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that says you must edit multiple articles or none at all. JRHammond (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I would add two further observations: (1) None of your comments address the basis for my appeal. (2) If you express no opinion on the ban, then it's inappropriate to comment here with prejudicial remarks against me. JRHammond (talk) 13:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) From [WP:TE]: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.

(2) Ok, you have convinced me to support the ban. - BorisG (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:JRHammond

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.

I gather the earlier discussion was closed as it was TL;DR, so I'll try to keep this short. JRHammond's talk page conduct has been disruptive, and he has yet to accept that he needs to modify his approach. Accordingly, I consider the indefinite article + talk page ban to be within admin discretion, although it's longer than I would've applied. PhilKnight (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this assessment. I would add that JRHammond's best approach to getting the sanction lifted would be to spend some time editing harmoniously outside the Arab-Israel conflict topic area. Indefinite ought not necessarily to imply infinite. CIreland (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reopened appeal by JRHammond suggests he has learned nothing at all from the last one. His mission on Wikipedia is (seemingly) to pound away until he can force his views into the Six-Day War article. I support the indefinite ban from article + talk page. You would think that JRH could manage to occasionally say *something* diplomatic that could lighten up the image that we have of him, but that never occurs. 'Harmonious' is not a word in his vocabulary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Harven

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

Request concerning Mir Harven

User requesting enforcement: No such user (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mir Harven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final Decision

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

[117] "I don't know what kind of therapy would suit you (if any), but your hysteric idiocies are all too easy refutable. ". If I recall correctly, was warned for this, and withdrew it. But there's more to follow...
[118] Talk:Croatian language: personal attack to kwami at the start of TLDR. Continued by a unpublished letter to an editor (in Croatian) violating BLP of Snježana Kordić, Croatian linguist of different opinion than Mir's
[119] Talk:Croatian language
[120] Talk:Croatian language: "My way or no way" attitude
[121] Croatian language: Summary revert to a fairly old version, throwing away all grammar and style changes in between
[122] Croatian language: Summary revert
[123] Croatian language: Today's summary revert

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

[124] Warning by Knepflerle (talk · contribs)
[125] Warning by kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Talk:Croatian language
[126] Warning by kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Talk:Croatian language

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Left to admins' discretion

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: The atmosphere surrounding the articles Croatian language, Serbo-Croatian language and to a lesser extent, Serbo-Croatian grammar and Serbian language is poisonous. There is a number Croatian nationalist editors, many of them SPIs, see e.g. Rokonja (talk · contribs), 78.0.154.106 (talk · contribs), 78.3.120.82 (talk · contribs) [127] which opposes any linking of Croatian with Serbo-Croatian in any shape or form, asserting that "Serbo-Croatian has never existed", summarily reverting to a version not mentioning the Serbo-Croatian as the language group, and putting walls on text on the talk page. According to Talk:Serbo-Croatian_grammar#Wikipedia_article_Serbo-Croatian_grammar_makes_headlines_in_Croatia, the campaign for "freedom of Croatian language against hegemonism" is moving even outside of Wikipedia, so this entire affair needs less fuel and more water. We don't want another ARBMAC arbcom, do we?

Granted, there was less than stellar behavior on the opposite side, myself included. Still, it is difficult to lead a thoughtful discussion and reach a consensus against an army of single-purpose accounts, and editors like Mir Harven and Croq (talk · contribs), who mostly summarily revert and repeat the same arguments on the talk page over and over. No such user (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [128]

Discussion concerning Mir Harven

Statement by Mir Harven

Comments by others about the request concerning Mir Harven

— kwami (talk)

This is beyond ridiculous. I think part of the reason so much revolves around slander is that no RS's are presented on Mir's side for substantive debate. I have no doubt that he actually believes his POV, but I've seen no evidence that it is in any way credible, and he has been debunked numerous times. (There are elements of truth in his arguments, such as Yugoslav standard Serbo-Croatian never being fully unified as a standard language, but such points are already covered in the articles and are largely peripheral to the edits he is pushing.) Since he cannot win through evidence, he resorts to edit warring. He's been gone a while, but is now back, and his only recent purpose here appears to be edit warring to redact the Croatian language article.

I'd think WP:ARBMAC should be applicable.

His accusations continue even when not engaging any of us here, as on WP-hr.[129] (Google translate will give you the gist; note that Kubura, a WP-hr admin, continues the rant, so this is not a single editor.) — kwami (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Mir Harven

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

I don't see a lot of edit warring going on in the article in question, his reversions seem to have been dealt with by others and the diffs on prior behavior are a few months old. I have put the WP:GS warning on the talk page and added a section to advise the editors there the article is subject to sanctions. I don't think any further action is needed at this point, perhaps a 1RR parole if things get bad with edit warring but it doesn't seem to be that way right now. --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Petri Krohn

Please either use the template or submit all the information required in the template for your filing. You are free to copy material from here into the proper section of the resubmission. DO NOT make any further changes to this section. Thanks. --WGFinley (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted improperly, please follow the instructions at the top of the page.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mass killings under Communist regimes Is under a 1RR restriction "per Digwuren", with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page.

User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as [130] without posting the revert on the article talk page (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at [131], The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page. As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. The template is simply incomprehnsible, alas, for making this into the official format. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Digwuren enforcement: ""any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (my emphasis). Collect failed to warn the editor and one violation of 1RR cannot be seen as "repeatedly". The correct forum is the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The warning is on the article pages. Also note repeated warnings on the person's ut page. The Digwuren warning has been given to Petri per the initial sanctions. And note that the article page specifies that the revert is to be noted on the article talk page. So much for Wikilawyering here about Petri not having any idea about Digwuren <g>. Collect (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where it started, and it was declined there as it was moved here. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, could you please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of "wikilawyering". I have inadvertently broken 1RR and I believe you have as well. Usually in these cases the editor is asked to self-revert before any sanctions are taken. Petri Krohn has self-reverted.[132] TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert Petri Krohn made there [133]. Strictly speaking, it was not a single revert, but two unrelated edits: firstly, he removed the text re-inserted earlier, and, secondly, he modified the lede. The latter edit cannot be considered as a revert, because Petri Krohn didn't edit the article before.
After that Fifelfoo and I made our edits, which were totally unrelated to the Petri Krohn's edits [134].
Then Collect made a wholesale revert, thereby reverting Petri Krohn's, Fifelfoo and my edits [135]. According to his edit summary, his only objection was removal of large text from the article. It is clear from this edit summary that Collect didn't notice change in the lede and the edits made by me and Fifelfoo.
Petri Krohn restored my and Fifelfoo's edits, as well as his changes to the lede which were reverted by Collect without any edit summary [136]. Note, he didn't redo a removal of the text Collect noted in his edit summary. Consequently, based on the Collect's edit summary I conclude Petri Krohn restored only the text removed by Collect accidentally.
Mark Nutley falsely accuses Petri Krohn in violation of 1RR [137]:

"* 1st revert: [138] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [139]

* 2nd revert: [140] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out."

6. As a result of Mark Nutley's attack Petri Krohn self-reverts [141].

Since Mark Nutley is known to use a 1RR as a pretext for unjustified attacks of good faith editors, in my opinion, he should be admonished about intrinsic flaw of such a behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to TFD above)You sought to dismiss this all, despite the clear material on the article pages, due to me "not notifying" Petri. I daresay that this is a splendid example of what you ought to decry. The person was, indeed, asked to self-revert -- and specifically refused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petri_Krohn&diff=383461541&oldid=383460124[ shows the refusal. Collect (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary. It is your revert [142] which caused all this turmoil which distracts reasonable editors form their work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I went back to a stable version of an article - rather than just looking at more than half of it being deleted. Indeed, I would suggest that deletion of more than half an article is a wholesale deletion. As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article talk page which specifies Digwuren, that is hard to fathom indeed. Collect (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone made a deletion of a large piece of the text does not allow you to revert other edits de facto without any edit summary. I agree, it is always easier to return to a stable version rather to meticulously restore the text you want, leaving other editing intact. However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. Interestingly, Petri Krohn fixed your own mistake (accidental removal of my edits without any edit summary), and, as a result, you reported him. Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN. I have not taken part in any of the WP:DIGWUREN deliberations nor have I even read the related pages. (I have however read much of the WP:EEML evidence and find it most revealing.) I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic, that is in anything Digwuren of his followers would be interested in – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user Digwuren (talk · contribs) was first rejected. The so called Digwuren warning was only introduced long after the case, I have never seen one. I do however take this AE as a serious warning.

Statement by User:Petri Krohn

There has been a clear argument made in the the long discussion at the talk page that the deleted content is off topic. Its inclusion is the main reason why the page is marked with multiple tags. As per WP:BOLD I suggested a new status quo where the tags could be removed. I also introduced a new lede to the article. The article was then edited by users Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). My edits and those of Raul Siebert Fifelfoo were then reverted by User:Collect, who reverted the article to a version by Marknutley, who again had reverted the article earlier today.

The two reverts to the article were to totally unrelated sections of the article. When I made the edit I was fully aware of the exitance of the 1 revert limitation and carefully limited my edits not to break it – although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. I now checked the article behind the WP:3RR and find that it now states "on a single page within a 24-hour period". This is new to me – the last time I remember reading the page was in May 2007 when I intentionally led user Digwuren into breaking 3RR. I now see that my edit have been against the letter of the new 3RR policy and have reverted myself (only to be reverted 2 minutes later with my changes restored.) I am now going through the edit history to see when the "single page" definition was added.

Unlike Collect and Marknutley I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petri Krohn

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

Request concerning Petri Krohn

User requesting enforcement: mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]; Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Petri Krohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy that this user violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Digwuren

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

[143] Reverts the reinsertion of a massive removal of content article is on a 1r restriction. He also did not go to talk to discuss these reverts or changes
[144] Reverts his lede back in

...

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

[145] Warning by Marknutley (talk · contribs)
[146] Notice from Collect
...

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): No idea what the usual actions are in this case, but his refusal to self revert after being informed of the restrictions on the article is problematic mark nutley (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per notice at top of page involved - all pertinent Digwuren sanctions Collect (talk) 17: 40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint: <Your text>

The page is clearly marked as being under 1RR, and that the Digwuren sanctions apply. It states that revers are to be posted on the talk page, which was done in neither case. The notice is prominent on the edit page, talk page, etc, hence is (per the notice) sufficient warning in the first place. Petri refused to revert at [147] which makes the far later "self revert" not applicable as an excuse (which was then reverted <g> by TFD at the two minute mark!) Petri is, moreover, expected to be especially mindful of all Digwuren sanctions. Collect (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also [148] inter alia and is well familiar with multiple bans. Collect (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[149]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Actual article talk page, edit page and so on as well as -[150] and [151] which ought to be sufficient. [152] Notification

Discussion concerning Petri Krohn

Statement by Petri Krohn

Neither of my two edits to the article today constitute edit warring as in Wikipedia:Edit warring. My first edit to the article, in accordance of WP:BRD, was a giant leap forward for the article, as it removed the heavy POV-tagging from the article, that had hampered it for wiki-years. My second edit only restored minor chances and improvements that were lost in User:Collect's summary revert of the article.

There has been a clear argument made in the the long discussion at the talk page that the deleted content is off topic. Its inclusion is the main reason why the page is marked with multiple tags. As per WP:BOLD I suggested a new status quo where the tags could be removed. I also introduced a new lede to the article. The article was then edited by users Paul Siebert (talk · contribs) and Fifelfoo (talk · contribs). My edits and those of Raul Siebert Fifelfoo were then reverted by User:Collect, who reverted the article to a version by Marknutley, who again had reverted the article earlier today.

The two "reverts" included in my edit were to totally unrelated sections of the article. When I made the edit I was fully aware of the existence of the 1 revert limitation and carefully limited my edits not to break it – although I would not brake 1rr even if it was not mandatory. I now checked the article behind the WP:3RR and find that it now states "on a single page within a 24-hour period". This is new to me – the last time I remember reading the page was in May 2007 when I intentionally led user Digwuren into breaking 3RR. I now see that my edit have been against the letter of the new 3RR policy and have reverted myself (only to be reverted 2 minutes later with my changes restored.) I am now going through the edit history to see when the "single page" definition was added.

Unlike Collect and Marknutley I have never edited the article before during its probation, (most likely never – but have not checked full history.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010

Comments by others about the request concerning Petri Krohn

Mass killings under Communist regimes Is under a 1RR restriction "per Digwuren", with a requirement that reverts be discussed on the talk page.

User:Petri Krohn is well aware of Digwuren (having been under its restrictions specifically, and has made reverts as [153] without posting the revert on the article talk page (copying a "bold" edit by Fifelfoo of deleting more than half the entire article, and which had been reverted) and then making a separate second clear revert at [154], The page is clearly marked on the talk page about the 1RR restriction, and has a huge red warning about the 1RR on the edit page. As Petri knows about Digwuren, I doubt that any excuse can be made. The 1RR is set as a bright line, not even an entitlement, and Petri has crossed it in spades. Thanks. The template is simply incomprehnsible, alas, for making this into the official format. Collect (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Digwuren enforcement: ""any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process" (my emphasis). Collect failed to warn the editor and one violation of 1RR cannot be seen as "repeatedly". The correct forum is the edit-warring noticeboard. TFD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)The warning is on the article pages. Also note repeated warnings on the person's ut page. The Digwuren warning has been given to Petri per the initial sanctions. And note that the article page specifies that the revert is to be noted on the article talk page. So much for Wikilawyering here about Petri not having any idea about Digwuren <g>. Collect (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is where it started, and it was declined there as it was moved here. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, could you please assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of "wikilawyering". I have inadvertently broken 1RR and I believe you have as well. Usually in these cases the editor is asked to self-revert before any sanctions are taken. Petri Krohn has self-reverted.[155] TFD (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert (taken from [156] mutatis mutandi)

The first revert Petri Krohn made there [157]. Strictly speaking, it was not a single revert, but two unrelated edits: firstly, he removed the text re-inserted earlier, and, secondly, he modified the lede. The latter edit cannot be considered as a revert, because Petri Krohn didn't edit the article before.
After that Fifelfoo and I made our edits, which were totally unrelated to the Petri Krohn's edits [158].
Then Collect made a wholesale revert, thereby reverting Petri Krohn's, Fifelfoo and my edits [159]. According to his edit summary, his only objection was removal of large text from the article. It is clear from this edit summary that Collect didn't notice change in the lede and the edits made by me and Fifelfoo.
Petri Krohn restored my and Fifelfoo's edits, as well as his changes to the lede which were reverted by Collect without any edit summary [160]. Note, he didn't redo a removal of the text Collect noted in his edit summary. Consequently, based on the Collect's edit summary I conclude Petri Krohn restored only the text removed by Collect accidentally.
Mark Nutley falsely accuses Petri Krohn in violation of 1RR [161]:
"* 1st revert: [162] first revert was to remove content which had been removed and then restored [163]
* 2nd revert: [164] reverts back in content he had added which was reverted out."
As a result of Mark Nutley's attack Petri Krohn self-reverts [165].

Since Mark Nutley is known to use a 1RR as a pretext for unjustified attacks of good faith editors, in my opinion, he should be admonished about intrinsic flaw of such a behaviour.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to TFD above)You sought to dismiss this all, despite the clear material on the article pages, due to me "not notifying" Petri. I daresay that this is a splendid example of what you ought to decry. The person was, indeed, asked to self-revert -- and specifically refused. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petri_Krohn&diff=383461541&oldid=383460124[ shows the refusal. Collect (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, Collect I apologised first for doing wholesale revert of several unrelated edits, which was supplemented with poorly written edit summary. It is your revert [166] which caused all this turmoil which distracts reasonable editors form their work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I went back to a stable version of an article - rather than just looking at more than half of it being deleted. Indeed, I would suggest that deletion of more than half an article is a wholesale deletion. As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article talk page which specifies Digwuren, that is hard to fathom indeed. Collect (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that someone made a deletion of a large piece of the text does not allow you to revert other edits de facto without any edit summary. I agree, it is always easier to return to a stable version rather to meticulously restore the text you want, leaving other editing intact. However, if you are not ready for meticulous work, don't edit Wikipedia. Interestingly, Petri Krohn fixed your own mistake (accidental removal of my edits without any edit summary), and, as a result, you reported him. Moreover, even after I pointed out at your mistake (which, I believe, was just a mistake) you still refuse to apologise and withdraw your accusations. Unbelievable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: " As for any assertion below that any person missed the prominent notice at the top of the article" The ref to this notice is totally irrelevant, because there were no second revert: Petri Krohn just fixed the mistake you made (removal of subsequent edits, which appeared to be reverted accidentally).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that I have no idea of WP:DIGWUREN. I have not taken part in any of the WP:DIGWUREN deliberations nor have I even read the related pages. (I have however read much of the WP:EEML evidence and find it most revealing.) I have followed a voluntary topic ban on the disputes in the EE topic, that is in anything Digwuren of his followers would be interested in – starting from the day in July 2007 when my request at WP:AN to have a community ban on user Digwuren (talk · contribs) was first rejected. The so called Digwuren warning was only introduced long after the case, I have never seen one. I do however take this AE as a serious warning.

Result concerning Petri Krohn

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

While it is true Petri was an original party to Digwuren the case was amended with discretionary sanction powers during his ban. It's conceivable he was not aware of them and I did not see any previous warnings or a log of the warning. Therefore I have now warned him [167] and logged the warning [168] so it is now clear he has been notified. I see no further action needed in this case as he self-reverted. This article may need a watchful eye for edit warring. --WGFinley (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 1,041: / Line 1,041: @@
 ===Result concerning Petri Krohn===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.''
+While it is true Petri was an original party to ''[[WP:DIGWUREN|Digwuren]]'' the case was amended with discretionary sanction powers '''during''' his ban.  It's conceivable he was not aware of them and I did not see any previous warnings or a log of the warning.  Therefore I have now warned him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petri_Krohn&diff=prev&oldid=383499874] and logged the warning [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren&diff=prev&oldid=383500804] so it is now clear he has been notified.  I see no further action needed in this case as he self-reverted.  This article may need a watchful eye for edit warring.  --[[User:Wgfinley|WGFinley]] ([[User talk:Wgfinley|talk]]) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.-->
 <!-- Use {{hat|result is ... }} / {{hab}} to mark this request as closed if collapsing desired.-->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards