User talk:JRHammond

Talkpage format
Hi. If you put your responses in middle of another editors comment it confuses the reader. By "splitting" the comment the first part is unsigned and who is saying what will be unclear. Please reformat your comments so that it does not "break" another editors comments. Thanks, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe I did so.JRHammond (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My bad. Sorry, -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 16:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Six-Day War. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. ← George talk 06:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell it to Jiujitsuguy, George. I've rightly corrected the article to comply with Wikipedia's NPOV and verifiability policies. Jiujitsuguy 3 times now has undone my right and proper revision, to make it read in a manner that violates that NPOV policy.

The last time he undid my edit, he did so with the comment that there is "no consensus" for it. But that's just the point, a perfectly good reason for my edit. As you will observe on the Talk page, there is no "consensus" that the attack was or was not "preemptive". The sentence thus, by his own logic, read so as not to assert either POV as fact, as my corrective has properly done.

I will continue to re-do my edit so long as Jiujitsuguy (or anyone else, for that matter) continue to undo it so that the sentence asserts as fact what is a subjective judgment, in violation of Wikipedia standards and policies.

Take your complaint to Jiujitsuguy, with whom it would have legitimacy.JRHammond (talk) 07:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "I will continue to re-do my edit so long as Jiujitsuguy (or anyone else, for that matter) continue to undo it..." IOW, you're vowing to continue edit warring in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Unacceptable.  Enigma msg  16:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
Notice of enforcement action--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions
As a result of the Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to Israel, Palestine, and related conflicts. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here. These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you.  Enigma msg  17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours
For a clear violation of WP:3RR. Please note that whether you think you're right or not, or whether you think you're restoring "NPOV" or not, does not affect whether or not it's edit warring. Unless you're removing clear vandalism or defamation (not the case here), it is edit-warring, period. If you persist with this behaviour after returning from your block, you will be blocked for a lengthier period of time.  Enigma msg  19:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The 3 revert rule states "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." I did not perform more than three reverts within a 24-hour period. Therefore, I did not violate WP:3RR. Restore my status. JRHammond (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You made four reverts on July 16, after inserting material that did not have consensus on the talk page.  Enigma msg  16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear on the facts, here, because you don't have them straight. I made TWO reverts on July 16. I know of no rule stating any limitation on the number of EDITS one makes, only the number of REVERTS.

The first was because 24.23.193.232 had reverted the text to violate NPOV. That's not an opinion, but a point of fact, by his own admission (he acknowledged it was a "viewpoint", yet his revert made it read as a statement of fact). So my revert of his revert was perfectly appropriate, and my reason for it was agreed to by the person whose undoing I undid! So what was the problem here? There was none.

My second edit was NOT a revert. Acknowledging the correctness of my point and reason for my revert, 24.23.193.232 then added a caveat to the sentence. I found it acceptable, but made was a minor edit, changing "was" to "is" because it should properly have been simple present tense, as it is true today. So what was the problem here? There was none.

The third edit I made was also not a revert. I inserted additional factual information into the paragraph, fully sourced, neutral and verifiable. Did adding further information in such a manner violate any Wikipedia policy? If so, what protocol did I ignore? I understand that: "The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating pages." [WP:BOLD] What was the problem here?

Jiujitsuguy then undid the information I added, without any legitimate explanation. So I added it once more noting that the addition was factual, neutral, sourced, and verifiable and requesting on the Talk page that if anyone has any problem with it, they should air their concerns and comments instead of just undoing my edit, since it was factual, neutral, sourced, and verifiable. Again, I fail to see the problem, or what WP policy I violated by doing so.

So, as you can see, that's at most two "reverts" (I only clicked "undo" once). I therefore did not violate 3RR, and you're block on me is therefore wrong and inappropriate. I suggest you get your facts straight and exercise better judgment next time, so as not to repeat this mistake in the future. JRHammond (talk) 02:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also note that the 3RR page states: "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page."

I maintain that all my edits improved the quality of the article, including in the case of the first revert, which was done so the article did not violate WP:NPOV, and the second re-insertion of additional factual material, fully sourced and verifiable. Yet, I was not only not shown leeway, but blocked despite the fact that I CLEARLY did NOT violate Wikipedia 3RR policy -- which you would have known had you bothered to take the time to actually investigate the matter seriously. What is with this prejudice, Enigmaman? Explain yourself. JRHammond (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You very clearly did violate 3RR, but hey, I've seen this before. You will never admit it. Edit warriors never want to admit they're edit-warring. Anyone can see the article history, you know.  Enigma msg  06:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Kindly prove your claim that I "clearly did violate 3RR". You'll find you won't be able to support that false claim, since I did not make 3 or more reverts in a 24-hour period, as I explained in detail above, the points of which you are either too lazy, ignorant, or dishonest to actually address, the facts of which you don't even make the slightest effort to dispute. But, hey, you'll never admit your incompetence and your error. I've seen this before. Like I said, you should exercise greater care in the future so as not to make a similar mistake again. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 06:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Exercise greater care to stop personally attacking me and stop edit-warring, else you'll be blocked again. You don't understand what a "revert" is, and that really isn't my problem.  Enigma msg  15:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well that "Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously. More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part."

You will observe the fact that, by this, Wikipedia's own definition, I only made two reverts and therefore did not violate the 3RR rule. As a further corollary, you wrongfully and inappropriately blocked me. Again, I suggest you get your facts straight and exercise better judgment in the future, so as not to make this mistake again. JRHammond (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking there may be some merit in JRhammond's original claim that there was no 3RR violation, as there were arguably only three reverts (by my count). However, the reverts in question were made to an article under general sanctions, which provide for an admin to take action to prevent disruption, over and above the edit warring policy which allows for a block even if 3RR wasn't violated. So while the letter of the block rationale might be questioned, the block itself was sound. There's no need to pile personal attakcs on top of (rather optimistic) wikilawyering.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I can also confirm that JRHammond did not violate 3RR. --Frederico1234 (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Frederico1234 and SheffieldSteel, for getting involved. SheffieldSteel, you suggest the block was "sound" despite acknowledging that there might be "merit" in my "claim that there was no 3RR violation". It is not a "claim" that I did not violate 3RR. Either I did or I didn't; and it is a fact anyone may verify for themselves (as Frederico1234 has done) that I did not. I don't know how you count 3 reverts. It's a fact that I only made 2 reverts (in fact, I only used "undo" 1 time) in the 24-hour period in question (as I outlined above). So, if I did not violate 3RR, how was blocking me based on violation of 3RR a "sound" decision? Enigmaman told me he blocked me for no other reason than allegedly violating 3RR. Yet he didn't even bother to take the time to distinguish between edits that were reverts and edits that were not. I took the time to point out his error in great detail, listing and explaining every single one of my edits and demonstrating I only made to reversions and reasonable requested his action to be undone. Yet even then Enigmaman didn't bother to address the fact, insisting I violated 3RR without offering any evidence for his false claim. If you can offer another explanation for this behavior other than laziness, ignorance, or dishonesty, I'm all ears. That is not a personal attack, it's an observation. If you think that's inaccurate, like I said, I'm all ears.

In addition, the 3RR page states, "Considerable leeway is given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." That means, according to Wikipedia's own policy, the purpose of an edit should MUST taken into consideration, and whether or not it improves the article, such as by making it comply with WP:NPOV. Yet clearly the only thing Enigmaman took into consideration was the number of edits I made (even when they were not reverts). I maintain that my edits improved the article and brought it into compliance with WP:NPOV. This is not an opinion. Fact: There are two viewpoints on whether Israel's war was "preemptive" or not. Fact: The article formerly endorsed one of those viewpoints in violation of WP:NPOV. Fact: I changed the lede from asserting the one side as fact in order to make it read neutrally, offering both views but endorsing neither. Thus, it is a demonstrable fact that my reverts improved the article. My other edits also improved the article, such as by fixing the be-verb "was" to the present tense, as it properly should have been, and by adding additional relevant and factual information, neutral, fully sourced, and verifiable. As such, blocking me was wrong and inappropriate. I would like to think administrators could exercise sounder judgment than what I've witnessed in Enigmaman. JRHammond (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This screed is wholly absurd. "This is not an opinion." Fact: When you start thinking your opinions are facts, there's a definite problem. You want a fact? You were edit-warring. Would you like me to ask other administrators to give their opinion on whether you were edit-warring or not? I think we'd have a consensus there. "I would like to think administrators could exercise sounder judgment than what I've witnessed in Enigmaman." I'd like to think editors could exercise sounder judgment than what I've witnessed from you. Let's look at the facts: 1)You edit-warred with three different editors to maintain your preferred version of the article, apparently believing that your opinion is the only valid one. 2)You denied edit-warring, despite a surfeit of evidence to the contrary. 3)After being blocked, you proceeded to call the blocking administrator a bunch of names. Other than getting a longer block, I don't know what you hoped to accomplish there. Luckily for you, I'm rather patient and I've been called far more names than you could ever conceive of.  Enigma msg  02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you care, Enigmaman, to actually address the facts and logic of my argument? Because if you continue to choose to ignore the facts I've given you and the logic by which I've arrived at my conclusions, without addressing them, then clearly we have nothing to discuss.

And you still can't seem to manage to get your facts straight, and you continue to make false claims against me. See, I'll actually respond substantively to your statements of fact and your logic. You should try it.

1) I did not edit war with three different editors. That is false, as I've already discussed at length. In sum, my edits with regard to 24.23.193.232 were mutually cooperative the editor agreed with my reason for my revert and compromised with a solution I found acceptable, but changed to correct the GRAMMAR!), and thus not "warring". But even if one were to accept the characterization of this as "warring", that's only TWO editors, the only other editor even involved being Jiujitsuguy. No other editors were even involved. Again, others can verify that fact, and see for themselves that you continue to demonstrate either incompetence or dishonesty.

2) Your "surfeit of evidence" that I've edit-warred consists of false statements such your false claim that I violated the 3RR rule and your false claim that I warred with 3 different editors.

3) On your claim that I called you "a bunch of names", you are attempting to imply that I engaged in an ad hominem argument. That is false. I merely observed the fact that you had blocked me on false pretexts, made false claims against me, as you continue to do, and observed the logical corollary that this could only be due to either laziness, ignorance, or dishonesty. If you see any fourth possibility there you're welcome to share it with us. I accept the possibility that perhaps I've been unimaginative in coming up with any other explanation for your behavior. JRHammond (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I am not intimidated by your threats to further abuse your authority against me, because I have faith and confidence that others may discern the actual facts and circumstances here and make a right judgment based on those facts, rather than based on blatant lies, the latter of which seems to be your preferred method. JRHammond (talk) 05:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * JRHammond - We allow some leeway for recently blocked users being unhappy about that. I would like to indicate to you in no uncertain terms that you've reached the end of that leash and need to stop now.  You're welcome to object - insulting and attacking are not acceptable forms of objection.  You have been insulting and attacking.  Please stop that.  If you want to argue that your edits didn't violate WP:EDITWAR please feel free to do so, but (despite the inaccurate 3RR label initially) it's not clearly evident that you didn't do so.
 * Enigmaman - I suspect that you continuing to engage in discussion here is leading things on to further abusive comments, rather than resolving the situation. I suggest that you simply disengage and leave it to other admins who JRHammond is less likely to insult; it will hopefully help defuse the situation.
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, you're presumption that I need to prove I didn't violate WP:EDITWAR is faulty. The reason given to me for why I was blocked was that I had violated 3RR. As you yourself acknowledge, I did NOT violate 3RR. Therefore, it follows that I should not have been blocked.

If you want to argue I should still have been blocked for other reasons, fine, but the burden of proof is on you to show that I violated policy, not for me to prove that I did not. Given the fact that so far I've been presented with no legitimate reasons for my being blocked, on the assumption that if there was one it would have been brought up by now, I'm confident I did nothing in violation of Wikipedia policy in any of my edits.

Finally, regarding what you consider "insulting and attacking", like I said, if anyone would like to suggest any other possible explanations or logical corollaries of the fact that Enigmaman felt it necessary to make demonstrably false claims in order to defend his inappropriate and abusive actions, I'm all ears. Be my guest.

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. JRHammond (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The block was a correct one, and I've already offered to ask other administrators for their opinions if you don't agree. You very clearly were edit-warring. Whether you technically violated 3RR is subject to debate, but it's immaterial, really, considering the article fell under sanctions and editors have been blocked for much less. Edit-warring on such an article is a more serious offense than edit-warring over some comic book. I would make the same block again, and I make no apologies. I do note that I should properly receive apologies for all the baseless personal attacks you launched, but after years of editing Wikipedia, my expectations have been significantly lowered. Good day,  Enigma msg  05:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. --Frederico1234 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The error I made was not making the block longer. I should have realized that a short block wouldn't work. The offender was told what he did wrong. He's been edit-warring for an extended period of time over an article. He responded to that by attacking me, as if I'm the problem here. Contrary to his claims that he never attacked anyone, you can see it all above.  Enigma msg  07:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You said "For a clear violation of WP:3RR.". That was wrong and your failure to admit that is problematic. --Frederico1234 (talk) 07:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I freely admit that I was wrong in not making the block longer. Based on what has occurred since, it seems to me that I erred. It could've saved a lot of people a lot of grief if the block were longer in the first place.  Enigma msg  17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
ANI--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jiujitsuguy, everyone knows you have a personal vendetta against me because you are unable to challenge the fact and logic of my arguments demonstrating that your insistence that the lede should endorse one viewpoint in violation of WP:NPOV, so instead you work to have me blocked and otherwise silenced. Why don't you try answering the facts I've given you on the Talk page? In the interests of ending the edit warring you've been engaging in, I've also repeatedly requested editors -- yourself included -- review the paragraph as it currently exists and express approval or disapproval, and if the latter, explain any objection and alternative suggestion. Responding to that reasonable request of mine might be a more productive use of your time than trying to get me blocked or banned. It's instructive you choose the latter in lieu of the former. I hope the administrators take notice of that and see through your childish games. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Links for Six Day War Material
I added links to Oren's book and the UK CAB file  on the article talk page. The other sources already had links. FYI the declassified UK Cabinet files from 1915-1979 are available online at the UK National Archives as free .pdf downloads. You have to use their "shopping cart system", but you pay nothing. There are thousands of documents, but only a handful have static links. harlan (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the resources, Harlan. JRHammond (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-11/Six-Day War
I've closed out the case because there's been far too much arguing on the case page already. If you are sincere in seeing this case mediated I will have a crack at it but 1) it needs to be resubmitted, 2) all concerned parties should be notified on their talk pages and on the article talk page so they can chime in on if they are interested in mediation and 3) there needs to be a commitment to mediate. If one or all of you are looking for someone to take your side in an edit war you've come to the wrong place.  If you are interested in trying to work out differences so all POV can be included I will be happy to help.  --Wgfinley (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not familiar with mediation procedures. I submitted originally in the hopes it would help end the edit warring behaviors some are engaging in. The basic problem is that most of the editors agree that the old wording stating as fact that Israel's attack on Egypt was "preemptive" violates WP:NPOV. The agreed solution is to make the statement neutral, endorsing neither one view nor the other. There are just one or two -- and I mean principally Jiujitsuguy -- who refuse to comply with this near-consensus agreement among editors and want to revert it to the un-neutral version. My efforts to have the article read neutrally in accordance with the majority agreement among editors resulted in ME getting blocked. So, it would be a breath of fresh air if one of the administrators actually did something to HELP the situation, rather than hinder efforts to enforce the agreed-upon solution among editors (see Talk page). If you don't mind helping us out on this, I'd like to follow through. If the behavior I'm describing continues, I'll resubmit. JRHammond (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, you are currently involved in edit warring on Six-Day War‎. I hope you know about 3rr rule? You have already made more reverts. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC) You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 55 hours, for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. This is a continuation of conduct that got you blocked before, which is why the block length has been increased per WP:Blocking policy. Instead of reverting and telling everyone else to stop edit warring, please in future restrict yourself to discussing, say, the article content - or how Wikipedia can best be improved by neutrally reporting what reliable sources have written on the subject. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user ( [ block log] | [ active blocks] | autoblocks | [ unblock] | contribs | deleted contribs | [ abuse log] ) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked. Request reason: " 1) "This is a continuation of conduct that got you blocked before, which is why the block length has been increased per WP:Blocking policy."

The length of this block was determined according to my previously having been blocked. Yet the reason I was given for that first blocking was violation of 3RR. I had NOT violated 3RR, and I have not been given ANY other reason for the blocking, so, therefore, I was wrongly blocked the first time. Even since pointing this out and having the fact acknowledged, I still have been offered no alternative explanation for why that initial block was legitimate. Having been wrongly blocked the first time, it follows that the length of time of this block is also wrongful.

2) "Instead of reverting and telling everyone else to stop edit warring, please in future restrict yourself to discussing, say, the article content - or how Wikipedia can best be improved by neutrally reporting what reliable sources have written on the subject."

The assumption here is that I have not discussed article content or how Wikipedia can best be improved by neutrally reporting what reliable sources have written on the subject, which is an absolutely and demonstrably false presumption. Good faith notwithstanding, this demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the situation on the part of the blocking administrator. If you look on the Talk page, you will observe that I have been as active as any other editor in insisting that the 3rd paragraph comply with WP:NPOV, in discussion how to make this happen, in seeking to form a consensus agreement, etc. As the assumption inherent in the reason given for the blocking being false, the blocking is therefore wrongful.

The fact is that the version of my edit was discussed at great length and voted on and approved by a majority of editors, and that it takes into account objections and concerns of others. How is it "edit warring" to implement a version that has approval of a majority pending revision only after further discussion? I require an explanation. Short of that, the block should be undone.

The fact is also that the versions other editors, mostly using anonymous IP addresses, made that UNDID the version that had majority approval were done without discussion, without explanation, without seeking approval, and otherwise without making any attempt to reasonably come to an agreement on the wording, despite REPEATED requests on my part, as well as others, that they comply with Wikipedia guidelines on conflict resolution and take their objections to the Talk page for peer consideration BEFORE making edits. This is behavior that clearly does constitute edit warring. Yet the fact is also that despite attempts on my part to get administrators involved to block editors who edit the 3rd paragraph without first raising their objections and proposed solutions on the Talk page, the editors who have rejected the reasonable solution agreed on by the majority continue to have free reign to revert the version that had peer approval. It is unproductive to block editors implementing the will of the majority, who have gone out of their way to seek a solution through discussion and peer review of proposed changes, who have appealed to admins to moderate the warring, and who only make edits that have peer approval, while editors acting defiance of that agreement are allowed free reign to revert the agreed-upon wording.

According to WP:BP, the purpose and goals of blocking are fourfold:

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

2. Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior, by making it more difficult to edit.

3. Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.

4. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

1, 2: My edit did not "damage" the article. It was discussed at length and had approval from a majority of editors pending revision following further discussion. It is not a "disruption" to make edits implementing versions agreed upon by a majority in accordance with WP policy on conflict resolution. The disruption is 100% the responsibility of editors who revert that version without discussion, without such peer approval.

3, 4: By blocking editors who have gone out of their way to seek a reasonable solution and peer approval while editors who defy the majority decision on the 3rd paragraph are allowed free reign to continually revert the agreed version (despite requests for moderation to prevent this from occurring), the administration is discouraging, rather than encouraging, a more productive congenial editing style within community norms.

If administrators would just block those editors who revert the agreed upon version without discussion, as requested, there would be absolutely no need for me to have to continually restore the ONLY version currently that has peer approval pending further review.

It follows, since the block is contrary to the stated purpose as per WP:BP, that the block put on me should be reversed.

Whatever your decision, I hope this will bring attention of admins to the article, and, whether I remain blocked or not, that admins will take a more active role in helping those editors who are being reasonable to protect the article against those who refuse to engage in any kind of dialogue to reasonably seek a consensus (or at least majority approval) on the wording. Please take the time to familiarize yourselves with what is going on with regard to the 3rd paragraph of the article, and take the situation into account before similarly penalizing other editors who are only seeking to prevent the agreed-upon wording from being reverted by those who unreasonably refuse to discuss the matter." If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read our guide to appealing blocks first and then use the unblock template again. Note that misuse of the unblock request procedure may result in the removal of your talk page editing privileges for the duration of your block.

recent changes

 * recent changes to my sandbox, see this. &bull; Ling.Nut 05:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict 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.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. CIreland (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One Week Block
It appears being blocked wasn't enough. You put in four requests to be unblocked, immediately after being unblocked you make a personal attack on me when I just asked you to take it down a notch (and I did not block you mind you and you were subsequently blocked by someone else) and you then made it sound like there was no justification for being blocked. It seems a longer time is needed for you to cool down.

Finally, launching into an attack on an admin that's just trying to keep the peace, was not even involved in any of the prior discussions and had nothing to do with you being blocked is a far cry from civil. You have 7 days to cool down now, if more action is made on that page to disturb the harmony there I will have to impose an article ban on you as another admin has already warned you about. Please, calm down, take a deep breath and a break and try to come back constructive. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request: That is absolutely false. I absolutely did not "make a personal attack" on you. Dishonestly claiming a false pretext to block me is a reprehensible abuse of your authority. Since the stated reason for this one-week block is wholly spurious, absolutely false, I demand to be unblocked immediately. Not only did I never make any "personal attack" against you, admins will observe that I actually thanked and praised you for intervening, which I also did in my private email message to you. This pretext for a one week block is absolutely spurious. You're making a minor disagreement on a tangential point on the Talk page into something personal and abusing your authority. As for your comments on the Talk page: * I never accused you of making ad hominem arguments, I asked you to calm down -- WP:DISENGAGE. I was never not "cool" to begin with, so it's unnecessary to tell me to "calm down", "cool down", etc. Moreover, you said to me: "I see some efforts being made to try to work out the differences, they will not be worked out if you resolve to not negotiate and dig in your heels. Respectful discussion free of attacks is the best way to do this ..." This implies I had made "attacks" on people in lieu of trying to negotiate a solution reasonably. But like I said, and as you seem to now acknowledge, I never employed any ad hominem arguments (i.e., "attacks"). Moreover, any administrator can go to the Talk page and see for themselves that I've gone to extraordinary lengths to negotiate a reasonable solution with other editors. * You can be right about something and still be wrong -- META:DBAD. I don't know what it is you think I am "right about" but still "wrong" about. But you seem to be implying I'm being a "dick". I challenge you to present any quotes from me evidencing your implication that I've been a "dick", i.e. by making "personal attacks". You'll find you are unable to do so. * You have engaged in a level of rhetoric that has created a hostile atmosphere (WP:CIVIL), you refuse to relent from your positions and you attack the positions of others with walls of text and barbs (WP:DBF). You've had editors ask you to calm down and you've had admins ask you to calm down and yet you've attacked anyone who has asked you to -- WP:NOTTHEM. Again, this is a false characterization. Every response of mine to others arguments has been to address the facts and logic of their arguments, as I am doing here with you. I have in no way been uncivil either with you or the other editors engaged on the Talk page. I have discussed diverging views and made numerous concessions to others on the Talk page in order to come to a consensus. My replies to others on their positions have consisted of substantive responses on points of fact and logic, never "personal attacks" or "barbs" ("walls of text" might apply, as I've gone to extraordinary length to outline my own views and to support my own arguments with facts and logic). * # "Unhelpful" is not a word. Thanks for the correction. I'll reiterate: "Kindly quote me where I ever employed any ad hominem arguments, as opposed to addressing the facts and logic of the argument(s) put forth. You'll find, Wgfinley, you're unable to do so. So kindly refrain from suggesting otherwise. It's not helpful. Cheers." Incidentally, it is apparently this comment you here regard as a "personal attack" against you. Any other admin can see for themselves I did not attack you here. On the contrary, I merely observed here that you had characterized ME as making "attacks", when I had never done so. You're making this personal and abusing your authority. * This is the first thing you posted immediately after your previous ban expired (WP:NAM) followed by open questioning of your ban even being valid, it appears you need more time to cool down, 7 days should do. You have not substantively addressed even a single point in my argument why my previous ban was wrongful. Yet you block me further on an even more spurious pretext -- this time an absolutely false allegation that I attacked you personally. Other admins can confirm I never once did so. * If you come back from this block and engage in more vitriol here again I'll have no choice but to take further sanctions and ban you from editing or discussion on this article per WP:GS. On your further mischaracterization of any of my remarks of mine as "vitriol", see above. I would request that whatever admin makes a decision on this that you please substantively address my points here. The stated reason for my being blocked for 1 week is that I made a "personal attack" on Wgfinley. Admins will find that I have never once done so. This block is therefore inappropriate and an abuse of authority. As such, it should be ended immediately.

I would also note that is was I who twice submitted this article for moderation, and that Wgfinley's involvement, for which I've thanked and praised him (this block being an obvious exception to my gratitude and praise) is a direct consequence of MY OWN repeated requests for moderation. Point being that the facts don't square with this strange accusation I made a "personal attack" against him, which is, as I said, and as anyone can verify for themselves, absolutely false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-07-25/Six-Day_War


 * I am reviewing this unblock request and this block makes absolutely no sense to me. After his previous block expired, JRHammond has made exactly three edits  none of which is a personal attack on Wgfinley or otherwise blockable. Additionally, administrators are not supposed to react to perceived personal attacks against themselves with blocks; this constitutes an abuse of administrator tools. I am about to lift this one week block as patently inappropriate, but I am first seeking the comment of the blocking admin in case there is somehing I've overlooked.   Sandstein   14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * His last block was all off 55 hours, during that time he refused to admit he did anything wrong and made no less than 4 unblock requests all of which were turned down. He promptly waded back in with this, he jumps right back into warring with other editors ("as you perfectly well know", "it's absolutely uncontroversial") and then accuses me of making a personal attack on him (WP:NPANPA) when I just asked him to tone it down (before he was blocked by another admin).  He's never once admitted he did anything wrong or agreed to try to work more productively which is the centerpiece of unblocking (WP:GAB).  The fact that he thanked me somewhere else is irrelevant, the fact that he spent his entire time blocked refusing to accept being blocked and blames others (WP:NOTTHEM) is and the fact he immediately jumped right back is (WP:NAM).  By itself his diffs aren't enough to merit having his block extended, they are when you consider the totality of his behavior.  I would encourage you to go look at the past several months of Six Days War discussion to see a clear pattern where JRH refuses to play well with others and is constantly POV pushing.  If he were to ever show contrition I would consider reducing the block but he doesn't seem to feel he does anything wrong, hence the need for an extension of his block.  --WGFinley (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No. While we do require users to show that they understand the problems for which they are blocked if they want to be unblocked, we do not require them to do anything else after the block expires but to avoid continuing the disruption for which they were previously blocked. In particular, users remain free to claim that they were unjustly blocked, as long as they don't cause any actual disruption again. The three talk page edits he made after his blocks clearly did not warrant a block, and at any case not by the admin at whom the perceived personal attack (which it was not) was aimed. The block is therefore unjustified. However, since we disagree, I am requesting community review at WP:AN as recommended by WP:BP.  Sandstein   16:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

your block, my user page, etc.

 * I was kinda thinking that the whole second block thing was a bit over-... over-.. uh.. overwrought, I suppose. But then again, I'm quite used to admins doing things I have no ability to see the sense of, so...
 * If you wanna make some edits in my user space and work together on it, that's OK. I just don't want a free-for-all of editors edit warring in my user space. An edit war in my user space would be very unpleasant... However, I will be honest and repeat that in my short time in that particular forum, it has seemed to me that you have always and everywhere represented the Arabic POV, though perhaps not to an extreme.
 * I may need to become a once-a-week editor. I'm getting busy.
 * &bull; Ling.Nut 12:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I appealed that block and had it overturned, as you probably noticed. I wasn't thinking about editing your sandbox. I thought I'd write a condensed version and present it for your approval on the Talk page your your user Talk page. I think your perception that I've represented the Arab POV is a really reflection of the bias in Western (and particularly U.S.) accounts in favor of Israel. The reflexive and virtually obligatory description of the war as "preemptive" is a case in point. I feel all my suggestions, edits, comments, criticisms, etc. have been on par with WP:NPOV. JRHammond (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's up to you, if you wanna write your own version. I would hate to lose all my work, and duplicating work is inefficient, but perhaps you have insights that I have overlooked. My plan is to trim my version as much as possible, plus add one paragraph about the actual combat. I found a great source for the latter, The Defense Technical Information Center, which has unclassified technical papers by military analysts... I'm aware that all or most of the writers are not even close to being "experts", but it is their field, and the info we need is very general. The attention of genuine experts is certainly not required. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a total rewrite, just to condense the main points so you don't have to remove that one paragraph in its entirety. I'm proposing Ling.Nut-Lite. I just don't think removing that whole paragraph is the best solution. I want to condense it to just the main points, leaving certain details for further discussion in the body. Here's what I propose so far:


 * The Six Day War or June War..., also known as the 1967 Arab-Israeli war or the Third Arab-Israeli War, was fought between 5 June and 10 June, 1967 by Israel and the neighboring states of Egypt [then the United Arab Republic, UAR], Jordan, and Syria. At the war's end, Israel had seized the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria.


 * After the 1956 Suez Crisis, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Sinai to ensure compliance with the armistice agreement and prevent raids across the border . On 4 November 1966, Syria signed a mutual defense agreement with Egypt. Nine days later, Israel attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian occupied West Bank in response to raids from the fedayeen group Fatah. King Hussein of Jordan criticized President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt for failing to come to Jordan's aid and "hiding behind UNEF skirts" [I checked Oren p. 135 and there's no mention of this on that page; please help double check source and find reference - possible later printing is different, I have 2003 first edition].


 * On 14 May 1967, Nasser began sending Egyptian forces into the Sinai Peninsula. Two days later he requested and obtained the withdrawal of UNEF from Egyptian territory. Israel rejected a proposal to restation UNEF on its side of the border. Egyptian forces replaced UNEF positions at Sharm el-Sheikh in the southern Sinai overlooking the Straits of Tiran. Between 18 and 20 May Israel reiterated declarations made in 1957 that any closure of the Straits would be considered as a cassus belli, or justification for war. Nasser declared the Straits closed to Israeli shipping on 22-23 May. On 1 June, Israel formed a National Unity Government by widening its cabinet, and on 4 June the decision was made to go to war. The next morning, Israel launched Operation Focus, a large-scale surprise air strike that was the opening of the Six Day War.

I think following this, since the lede really only mentions the war between Israel and Egypt, there should be a brief discussion of the Jordan and Syria fronts, as well. With this slimmer version, it should be possible to fit that in, at least briefly. Let me know what you think. JRHammond (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get your thoughts first, and then after maybe we can take it to Talk to discuss with others and get further approval. JRHammond (talk) 02:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll be posting my "conflict" paragraph in the next hour or two (probably sooner rather than later); it's half done already. I'm gonna post what I have so far immediately, then a few more sentences shortly afterward. &bull; Ling.Nut 03:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My conflict paragraph is finished; see my user space. I have to go for a while now to do real-life chores. Thanks for your cooperative editing! &bull; Ling.Nut 03:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. See my userspace; please especially note my request for a cite... [In addition to the request for a cite, I'm not sure why we are including that fact in the lead. I haven't noticed any other sources dwelling on it or discussing it. If no one else is discussing it, why are we foregrounding it in the lead?]... I feel like you and I are negotiating the sale of a house! I must be the seller and you the buyer, 'cause I keep asking for more & you for less.&bull; Ling.Nut 09:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a couple sources on Israel refusing UNEF. The Wikipedia page on UNEF actually notes that Israel refused to have it on its side of the border, and references this:


 * If UNEF had been deployed on both sides of the Line as originally envisaged in pursuance of the General Assembly resolution, its buffer function would not necessarily have ended. However, its presence on the Israel side of the Line has never been permitted. The fact that UNEF was not stationed on the Israel side of the Line was a recognition of the unquestioned sovereign right of Israel to withhold its consent for the stationing of the Force.
 * http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/f45643a78fcba719852560f6005987ad/44c971ced20b476705256559005be4a5?OpenDocument
 * Yet a simple solution to the UNEF conundrum existed, U Thant believed, and he presented it the next morning, May 18, to the Israeli ambassador. The UN force would cross the frontier and redeploy on Israeli territory.
 * Oren, p. 72.


 * "...greatly reducing its geographic vulnerability to attack from neighboring states"

I object to including this in the lede. First, why state the war's consequence for Israel but not for the other side? Second, the assumption is that Israel was vulnerable to attack beforehand, but that's questionable, since Israel's military power was far superior to its neighbors. Third, it implies that Israel's neighbors are the aggressors, which has actually never been the case.


 * The consequences to the other countries are in the last paragraph. Stop me if I'm wrong, but Israel was attacked in '48 and again in '73. Moreover, the military sources I've been looking at make the case that Israel was very vulnerable (but that the Arabs weren't quite up to the task).


 * Ling.Nut, in 1948, Jews -- a minority -- owned 7% of Palestine, and Arabs -- the majority -- 85%. The Zionists had made clear their desire to possess all of Palestine and turn it into a "Jewish state", despite the fact that it was already inhabited. In May, Israel unilaterally declared the existence of the state of Israel without specifying any borders. In doing so, the Zionists effectively declared that Arab land was now Jewish land, and Arab Palestinians were now second-class citizens in their own country. To say that the Arab armies attacked Israel is to say this open theft of Arab land was somehow legitimate. The Arabs were defending the right of Palestine's inhabitants to self-determination and their right to live in peace and security in their own homes, which events like the massacre at Deir Yassin just before the war proved was threatened by the Zionists and their intentions. Most of the fighting that occurred during this war occurred in ARAB territory, and during that war the Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine of more than 700,000 Arabs. This was not an Arab war of aggression. It was an Israeli war of aggression.


 * In 1973, Egypt and Syria did not launch a war of aggression. They launched a war TO RECLAIM THEIR OWN TERRITORY; the Sinai in Egypt's case, and the Golan Height's in Syria. Repelling foreign occupying forces from one's own land is not "aggression", but "self-defense" under international law.


 * As for Israel being "vulnerable", I would refer you to my discussion of U.S. and Israeli intelligence estimates. It's completely uncontroversial that Israel's military was vastly superior to the Arabs. The Arab armies had more numbers, but Israel vastly outgunned them. If Israel's own intelligence matched that of the U.S. that since Israel had such a vastly stronger military, it was unlikely Nasser would be foolish enough to attack, and, moreover, that Israel would win a war against its Arab neighbors combined in 1-2 weeks, how can this characterization possibly hold up? This characterization is a contemporary holdover of the Israeli propaganda at the time that it's very existence was being threatened. It's absolutely baseless. JRHammond (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "Nine days later, Israel attacked the city of as-Samu in the Jordanian occupied West Bank in response to raids from the Palestinian fedayeen group Fatah, carried out through Jordanian territory."

To my knowledge, raids were carried out from the West Bank, which was not really "Jordanian territory". It was occupied by Jordan at the time, but never belonged to Jordan. Suggest removal of "carried out through Jordanian territory".


 * I'll look into this. We might be able to change it to "Jordanian-controlled territory"... "Another mechanism of subversion was the support of Palestinian commando raids into Israel from Jordanian territory" Jordan in the 1967 War by Samir A. Mutawi, p. 75. Even Finkelstein uses the phrase "Jordanian territory" on p. 125 of "Image and reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict"...


 * Okay. I'm satisfied with that. JRHammond (talk)


 * "It crippled the Egyptian, Syrian and Iraqi and air threat..."

Object to "threat". It's suggestive that Israel was acting preemptively or otherwise in self-defense. Yet, in the face of a surprise attack by Israel, which struck first, it would have been the Arab's air forces acting in self-defense, had they not been obliterated in Israel's surprise attack. This is not NPOV.


 * We can change that word to "forces"


 * Perfect. JRHammond (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Six Day War has been characterized as a preemptive war, an "inadvertent war", and an action designed to preserve the credibility of Israel's deterrence strategy, among other things."

Why note two variations of the Israeli POV, only to exclude the Arab POV altogether? To Israel, it was "preemptive". Describing it as a war to deter Arab aggression is also Israeli POV. To the Arab states, it was "aggression". For NPOV, both POV's must be presented.


 * That's not quite correct. The "inadvertent war" description is neutral. It means that both sides misunderstood the other, with disastrous consequences. The "deterrence" explanation is "preventive war" (in contrast with "preemptive"). Preventive war is not Israeli POV; it is illegal. The word "aggression" is never used – the "deterrence" bit translates (in simple English) to "Israel said closing the Straits was cassus belli; if Israel hadn't acted, it would have been regarded as a sign of impotence, with dire diplomatic and potentially military consequences for Israel" ... As for including an Arab POV, I suppose if you wanted, you could call the Six day War a Pearl Harbor-type of attack placed in the Middle East... if it weren't for the closing of the Straits. We really do need to look at this issue of the closing of the Straits. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, except in the context of open war.


 * Well, you'll note I didn't take issue with "inadvertent war", only with the two characterizations that are Israeli POV. It is an Israeli POV that the war was "preventive" -- which is to say that it "prevented" Arab aggression against Israel -- just as it is Israeli POV that the war was "preemptive". The fact that "preventive" warfare is not recognized as legitimate under international law does not change the fact that this is an Israeli POV, just as it's a U.S. POV that the war in Iraq was "preventive". The opposite POV, of course, is that it was a war of aggression, which, under international law, as a point in fact, it was. And it's not true that the war is not described as an act of aggression, from the opposite POV. For instance:


 * Here is how the war is described in a history textbook for secondary school students:
 * "As the Arab nationalist tide of liberation grew stronger, and some Arab revolutions became victorious, the Zionist aggression on 5 June 1967 had the aim of bringing down the Arab progressive forces with the help of the United States."


 * To state two different variations of the Israeli POV, but not the POV of the Arab-Muslim world, violates neutrality policy. To be WP:NPOV compliant, both views must be presented. As for the closing of the Straits, the lede does discuss that. JRHammond (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the "preventive" thought is that Israel wanted to prevent a loss of its credibility rather than prevent an attack in the distant future. Now, you can make a tenuous case that a loss of its credibility would have then led to an attack, but that's sorta neither here nor there... It would have made their military seem shackled by political considerations (except against Jordan, I suppose). In other words, if a country says it will attack if someone takes action X, then someone does take action X, then that country is in a deep hole if it doesn't do what it said it would do... You keep suggesting that the lead is pro-Israel or anti-Arab. I don't see it that way. There's one and only one thing in there that makes Nasser look bad – closing the Straits, of course. The forces on the border was of course a provocative action, but not provocative enough %ndash; it wasn't cassus belli. He had put forces on the border before as a political ploy, and Israel knew it. Moreover, the size of the forces was.. debatable.. but certainly not enough to smash Israel in one swoop. As for UNEF, he had every legal right on the planet to ask them to leave. Again, it was a move with threatening overtones, but not cassus belli. Israel stood still and did nothing after those two moves, presumably (or at least, ostensibly) waiting for a diplomatic solution. Eshkol even made a speech calling for a diplomatic solution. It was closing the Straits, and only closing the Straits, that was the equivalent of crossing the Rubicon. Why, then, did Nasser close the Straits?? That's what I really want to know. I have not yet seen any article or book say that Egypt was in danger from the Israeli navy in such a manner that closing the Straits could be construed as a defensive move... so if it wasn't a defensive move, what was it..?? &bull; Ling.Nut


 * Okay, I see where you're coming from with "preventive". My point still remains that if the lede is going to list different points of view of the war, and if it's going to include the Israeli POV that the war was "preemptive", then it would certainly be appropriate to include the opposing POV that it was "aggression". Excluding the POV of the Arabs would seem to me to be a grievous error of omission. What objection do you have to adding this description of the war to the list of various characterizations? Why is the Israeli POV valid to list here, but the Arab POV not? I'm not asking for a statement ENDORSING that POV, but surely both sides' POV's are worthy of mention? This is a matter of NPOV: If the Arab POV is not going to be noted, then neither should the Israeli one; conversely, if the Israeli POV is mentioned, then so should the Arab one. This is neutrality.
 * "The Arabs saw it as an act of aggression" is self-evident enough to go into the lead... but if we mention that POV in the lead, it must go in the article. You're gonna need to find good sources... &bull; Ling.Nut 06:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On the Straits, that's a separate discussion, and as far as I'm concerned not immediately relevant to my concerns over the wording. I think we're very close to a completed version we both approve of, but this issue on listing characterizations of the war without including the Arab POV is the one thing I'm not satisfied with yet. JRHammond (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * "The nature and outcome of the war brought secular nationalism into widespread disfavor among Arabs, and lead to a concurrent rise in the growth and influence of Islamism in the Arab world."

Minor grammar error: "led" not "lead. Past tense.


 * The nature and outcome of the war brought secular nationalism into widespread disfavor among Arabs, and lead to a concurrent rise in the growth and influence of Islamism in the Arab world.

The lede states this as a consequence, and concludes on the point. Yet there is noting in the lede at all about the fact that the war led to a 4-decades-long illegal occupation of Arab land that continues to this day, which has had and continues to have enormous repercussions. The occupation is absolutely key to understanding how and why the war was such a watershed event and I feel it absolutely must be noted in the lede. JRHammond (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Islamism: Many, many sources state this as a consequence, or at least as the main cause of a turnaround in Arab thought... Occupation: If you wanna find a very authoritative reference to UN documents or other things that state that the land does not rightfully belong to Israel, mention it very briefly (please, very few words) in the lead and then elaborate in the body text, you certainly can. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I wasn't denying that that was a consequence, but I just think to mention that but not the occupation is a major oversight. I don't think it's really arguable that the most long-lasting and significant consequence has been the illegal occupation, which continues to this day. That has been the source of conflict for over 40 years, with incalculable repercussions. I suggest adding after the above sentence:


 * "Another lasting consequence of the war that has had enormous repercussions and which helped establish the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East was the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, which continues to this day."


 * That's perhaps not as brief as you were looking for, but I think this is crucial and its importance cannot be overstated. It deserves at least one sentence in the lede. I suggest concluding the lede with this. I've worded it in a way that won't be controversial, or require sourcing. JRHammond (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe a shortened version. Will think about it... &bull; Ling.Nut 05:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not add it for now and get other editors' views on it? Surely you can agree this is a consequence of the war worth at least MENTIONING in the lede? Perhaps others can suggest shorter versions or otherwise revise the wording. I have no problem with that. My only insistence here is that the occupation be MENTIONED. How can it not be, particularly if one is going to mention other consequences? This is absolutely crucial. JRHammond (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not deliberately neglect to mention the Palestinian territories. I was working from the sources that I was looking at, which were not related to that issue, and so did not mention it... I see it as a legitimate topic for very brief inclusion in the lead, and am thinking about the wording. Please do be very careful. I have worked far too hard for another stinking edit war.... I added a sentence that seems self-evident enough to be flame-proof&bull; Ling.Nut 06:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See previous posts on this page for commentary; for recent changes to the lede see this. &bull; Ling.Nut 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't suggest the omission was deliberate. I'm merely noting that one can hardly talk about the war without noting what one could easily argue is the single most consequential outcome, the continued occupation.


 * "Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor." -- I'm satisfied with that.


 * "The unresolved political status of the Palestinian territories and their inhabitants, plus the concurrent refugee problem, are central issues of the ongoing Israeli–Palestinian conflict." -- But this doesn't note the fact that the reason this is a central issue is because Israel occupied those territories during the war.


 * Also, I'm not sure it's fair to say "unresolved political status", because it could be interpreted to mean that they are disputed territories, or that Israel has some legitimate claim to them, which is not the case. It's an uncontroversial point of fact under international law that the territories are Palestinian, that Israel has no legal claim to the land, and that Israel's occupation and settlement activities, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and in violation of numerous UN Security Council resolutions.


 * What objections do you have to my suggestion: "Another lasting consequence of the war that has had enormous repercussions and which helped establish the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East was the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, which continues to this day"?


 * You mentioned length, so what about: "Another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East is the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories."


 * Or, "The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and its repercussions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another consequence that established the Six Day War as a watershed event in the Middle East."


 * I think this would be a strong finish to the lede that serves as a good segue into the body. I can understand not wanting to include something that Jiujitsuguy, et al, might try to constantly change, but that the occupation is an occupation is not a point of view, but a point of fact, so I don't see any legitimate reason not to at least mention it briefly in the lede. Again, the importance of this fact cannot be understated. It is absolutely crucial. I would again add that I would welcome other editors' thoughts on this. Let's get harlan's view, for instance. JRHammond (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can ask harlan for input any time you want. The more the merrier... My problem with your version is that I have six goals: stay bland, stay bland, stay bland, stay NPOV, keep it short, and cover the topic. Your version violates the first three goals and the fifth one. As for "unresolved political status", I was unaware that the terminology could have political ramifications. It was the blandest thing i could think of... If you can make your version closer to mine, that would be good. By the way, if e mention the refugee problem etc. in the lead, then we have to write stuff about it in the body text. You do realize that making this article even halfway professional-looking is a project that will probably literally take literally months&bull; Ling.Nut 10:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll post my suggestion on the Talk page and see if I can't get some others' input. On refugees, you'll notice I didn't include that in my version. ;) JRHammond (talk) 11:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If no one replies by tomorrow, I'm just gonna put it up on the article. Frederico and MBZ1 have already indicated "Mostly Support". We can worry about the last line after that. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

a tedious request; OR & WEIGHT concerns

 * Do you have a scanner, or access to one? Google books does not permit access to pp. 71–73 of Oren, and that is the location of the crucial cite about Thant wanting to move UNEF into Israel. I have seen cites that said Israel never wanted UNEF inside its borders; I have not seen one that says Thant proposed it again.
 * Importantly, you also need to worry about Original research & WP:WEIGHT. Both of these apply not just to facts, but also to their analysis. I have yet to see anyone who places any stress at all on this event. if you want it in the lead, it is not enough to prove it happened. You must show that other analysts consider it significant, in precisely the manner that you assert that it is. &bull; Ling.Nut 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No scanner or access. But I'm happy to quote the most relevant portion from Oren from p. 72: "Yet a simple solution to the UNEF conundrum existed, U Thant believed, and he presented it the next morning, May 18, to the Israeli ambassador. The UN force would cross the frontier and redeploy on Israeli territory." He goes on to note that Israel rejected the proposal, and spends several pages in total discussing the matter.


 * I don't see any problem with stating a fact in the lede. I'm not suggesting including the conclusion I drew from it. Just state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions. However, if you'd like a further source, referring to Oren's explanation as to why Israel rejected the proposal, Finkelstein writes: "It is hard to understand, however, why stationing UNEF on the Egyptian side of the border preserved the peace while stationing it on the Israeli side would not have or, put otherwise, why UNEF would deter Egyptian aggression on the Egyptian side but not the Israeli side." Finkelstein also discuss this at further length ("Abba Eban with Footnotes", Journal of Palestine Studies XXXII, no. 3, Spring 2003, pages 74-89).


 * Here, you have two prominent sources writing from two opposing perspectives, both considering as significant the Israeli rejection of the proposal to have UNEF posted on its side of the border. So I don't see any issue with WP:OR or WP:WEIGHT. There might be if I was suggesting drawing a conclusion from the fact, but I'm not -- I'm only suggesting it's a pertinent fact that deserves a mention, if not in the lede, then certainly in the body. JRHammond (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As a linguist, I would suggest that the act of including it in the lead necessitates that the reader will draw conclusions regarding its significance, and project those conclusions into a surmise about its reason... somehow, I'd like to get Oren's pages.&bull; Ling.Nut 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But the lede already notes that Nasser evicted UNEF from Egyptian soil. How does it serve to mention that fact, but to omit the fact that Israel similarly rejected having UNEF on its soil? WP:NPOV would seem to demand that both facts be mentioned, or neither, for precisely the reason you just gave, which is that readers will draw conclusions based on what facts are given. What is better, to provide readers with a partial story, or a fuller account? Should the article lead readers to draw conclusions based on an account that omits relevant facts, or based on an account that includes them? I really can't understand your objection to including this fact in the lede, and your own argument would seem to me to necessitate its inclusion. JRHammond (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all about the sources. How much weight do they give it? I need more info. we will continue to look at this. &bull; Ling.Nut 10:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:WEIGHT applies to viewpoints, not facts. We're not talking about a flat Earth theory here, but an proven and uncontroversial fact. WP:WEIGHT doesn't apply. And WP:OR is not an issue, because we have published sources that merit significance to this fact. The only question is whether we want the lede to give a partial, one-sided account or a fuller, more neutral account. WP:NPOV demands the latter. I'll bring this up on Talk and see what others say. JRHammond (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're flat wrong. You have to stand back, look at the final product (like a painting), and judge it in the light of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. What matters is the overall gist of the finished product, and its correspondence (or lack thereof) to the gist of reliable sources. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, YOU are flat wrong. 1) I am not proposing we draw a conclusion or imply a conclusion, only that we state a proven and uncontroversial fact. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and in order to not mislead them, a fuller accounting of the facts is necessary. Insofar as WP:SYNTH applies, therefore, it demands the fact be noted. 2) This is not original research. Published sources lend significance to this uncontroversial fact, as already noted. WP:OR therefore is not an issue, as I've already pointed out. 3) This is not a viewpoint, but a fact, so WP:WEIGHT does not apply. 4) There is nothing biased about noting this uncontroversial fact, but there is bias in omitting it, so insofar as WP:NPOV applies, it demands the fact be noted. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever not to include this fact in the article. JRHammond (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason not to include the fact in the body text of the article. If that is all you want, then we are talking past each other, and we are needlessly discussing a settled proposition. If you want it in the lead, then there may (or may not) be adequate cause for disputing that practice. As I said earlier, it's all in the sources. What you need are not sources which state that Israel declined to accept UNEF troops (even after a last-minute repeat of the request by U Thant); what you need are sources that stress this fact, analyze it in depth, etc. If all sources mention it but then dismiss or drop it, then we are amiss (and violating WP:WEIGHT) if we do anything other than mention it and dismiss or drop it... If the only sources you can find that analyze this fact are biased sources (e.g., Finkelstein), then by our "no point/counterpoints in the lead" principle, it should not be in the lead, but certainly can be in body text. Is that any clearer? Hope this helps... &bull; Ling.Nut


 * It's noncontroversial, it's relevant, and prominent sources writing from opposing viewpoints lend weight to its significance, as I've already shown. Period. So, do you have any other objections?

I've begun a new section at the Talk page so we can draw in more editors and keep the discussion to one location, instead of there, here, and on your own talk page. I hope this helps. JRHammond (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Did I miss the bit where you showed that "prominent sources writing from opposing viewpoints lend weight to the significance" of Israel rejecting U Thant's last-minute proposition? I asked for sources. You told me that the sources say that, but very apologetically I must say that I need to see those sources. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've given you sources. Are you suggesting I'm fabricating information or lying about what the sources say? JRHammond (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR
I was just doing some basic Google searching regarding the topic in debate as I knew very little on the topic. It didn't take me long before I found an article on a website called Foreign Policy Journal and The Progressive Mind by one Jeremy R. Hammond. Interesting I thought since I knew a Wikipedia user with those same initials.

I would suggest you take a close look at the original research policy, especially the synthesis policy because this is clearly an area you are researching and I think you should have divulged to the editors there you have written and published on this topic. In fact it all makes perfect sense. You made all of four edits before July 4th, you publish your article, someone makes a comment and refers to the Wikipedia article and it appears you begin in earnest to "correct" the Wikipedia article. It is clear by the site and your comments to the article you have a POV you are wishing to highlight, it needs to cease on that article.

I think, in good faith, you should divulge to the editors there your writings on this topic outside of Wikipedia so they're familiar with your research and can determine if that research is becoming a part of the argument on the article. --WGFinley (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a non-issue. I have never referenced my own writings, and I was unaware anyone else had done so. Your implication with your "It all makes perfect sense" comment that I somehow conspired with whoever did so to have them do so is completely baseless. I don't even know what editor you are referring to who did so, and I never saw it.


 * If you have a problem with any of my comments, arguments, edits, at Wikipedia, you're welcome to address them on the basis of their perceived merits/demerits. If you insist I disclose my identity, you must do the same with every other editor. I'd observe that I'm one of few users who don't try to hide their identity with their username. I've never tried to conceal who I am.


 * Every other editor also researches. That is how they are able to work on the article. Of course I've researched the topic. That's a prerequisite for being able to edit. Every other editor also has their own opinions and points of view. The fact that I have published my own while others haven't is also completely irrelevant.


 * This is a non-issue. If you're still trying to make this personal, as you did with your inappropriate and abusive block that I had reversed, I would suggest you reassess your priorities. JRHammond (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My user page has a link to my email, my blog and my photography and my user name is my real name. Don't think I'm hiding at all, I think you're deflecting a bit.  You have taken a definitive stand on the subject and I think that is leading you to believe that stand needs to be in the lead.  One might even accept that but you just don't think it, you insist on it and refuse to accept otherwise.  No one is saying your POV can't be represented, just that it shouldn't get undue weight in the lead.  I didn't go looking for this I just searched "six day war preemptive" trying to read some differing opinions on the subject in Google and it's on the 3rd page of results.  --WGFinley (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said, it's a non-issue. I'm not pushing for my POV in the lede. I'm absolutely in agreement with the majority of editors that neither the one POV nor the other should be endorsed in the lede. You're making an issue where there is none. JRHammond (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You just posted a wall of text in objection to Ling's work and position on the lead that it avoid this particular conflict and address it later on in the article. You have only edited one article and it's this one and you happen to have an article with a clear POV you posted referencing your original research. The current edit war on a relatively calm article started immediately after your published your article.  I think that's very much an issue.  --WGFinley (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) You'll note I opened my "wall of text" by stating I approve of most of Ling's work, and that my objections are limited to 5 issues. Address my comments and arguments on the basis of their merit or demerit, rather than employing ad hominem argumentation against them. 2) The fact that this is the only article I've worked on is irrelevant. There is no policy stating one must work on more than one article or none at all. 3) The fact that I've researched this topic is irrelevant. It would seem to me that having knowledge of a topic should be a prerequisite for any editor to edit an article on said topic. 4) The edit war began prior to and has nothing to do with the publication of my article. If you want to try to produce an argument to the contrary, you're welcome to try. Best of luck with that.


 * This is a complete non-issue. JRHammond (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JRHammond, you wrote: "If you insist I disclose my identity". You do not have to. I just read your Has the U.S. Played a Role in Fomenting Unrest During Iran’s Election?. I thought you might be interested to read my conversation with an editor from Iran. In your opinion they are probably a paid CIA agent. I also read your yet another 9/11 conspiracy theory. So I know about you all there is to know, and it is interesting, and yes, it is an issue. --Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no interest in debating strawman and ad hominem arguments, or in discussing topics irrelevant to the Six Day War article. JRHammond (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm referring you to WP:OR and the very fact today even you were asked for sources on something and responded with an accusation of being called a liar. . You only want to count from your own sources, you are combative and argumentative, Ling is just trying to get everyone on the same page and you call him flat out wrong and posted an mountain of WP:SYN. If you're going to continue to ignore policy and be civil and work constructively with others there's going to be little else to do about the constant disruption on that page. --WGFinley (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have in no way been uncivil, and I have made extraordinary efforts to work constructively with others. It's this whole vendetta you have against me that is uncivil and unconstructive. JRHammond (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I just gave you three undiffs from today where you have been uncivil. 1) Making a false accusation of Ling calling you a liar when he simply asked for sources, 2) all caps how he's flat out wrong, you had some other harsher comments you posted and then changed from the talk page  3) ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN by either reacting combatively to your sources being challenged  or inventing attacks on you.

There's a great quote from Jimmy that applies here:

The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:
 * If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then &mdash; whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not &mdash; it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

I really wish you would read some of these and take them to heart. --WGFinley (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have in no way been uncivil. The only false claims here are your own. JRHammond (talk) 06:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been uncivil on multiple occasions, and there's scads of evidence all over your talk page. Do you really wish to continue to maintain a clearly indefensible position?  Enigma msg  06:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * WGFinley, please read WP:OUTING. --Frederico1234 (talk) 06:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't violated it, I didn't reveal any information. I pointed out an article I came across and he confirmed it was him.  Similar work has been done in the past in cases of verifying original research and people who edited their own article.  --WGFinley (talk) 06:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please quote me, in context, where I have ever been "uncivil". You'll find you are unable to do so. Let's take Wgfinley's ostensible examples:

1) The only false accusation here is Finley's. I did not "accuse" User:Ling.Nut of calling me a liar. Here is the exact communication I shared with Ling:


 * Ling.Nut: "You told me that the sources say that, but very apologetically I must say that I need to see those sources."
 * JRHammond: "I've given you sources. Are you suggesting I'm fabricating information or lying about what the sources say?"

2) Again, the exact communication, in context:


 * Ling.Nut: "You're flat wrong...."
 * JRHammond: "No, YOU are flat wrong...."

3) As for my having "ignored calls to avoid WP:OR and WP:SYN", here is my exact reply:


 * JRHammond: "1) I am not proposing we draw a conclusion or imply a conclusion, only that we state a proven and uncontroversial fact. Readers will draw their own conclusions, and in order to not mislead them, a fuller accounting of the facts is necessary. Insofar as WP:SYNTH applies, therefore, it demands the fact be noted. 2) This is not original research. Published sources lend significance to this uncontroversial fact, as already noted. WP:OR therefore is not an issue, as I've already pointed out."

As you can see, there was nothing "combative" about my reply to Ling on WP:OR and WP:SYN (or my replies to him on any other issue, for that matter). Nor did my response consist of "inventing attacks" against me.

The only persons being uncivil are those falsely accusing me of being uncivil and otherwise harassing me on spurious pretexts. JRHammond (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Which position of his is indefensible, Enigmaman? The point he's making about UNEF is under discussion; he may in fact prevail (or may not). If you're talking about his statement that he hasn't been uncivil, your characterization is still debatable, but at any rate is not the sort of propositional statement that I would consider a "position". I would call it a "statement". But whatever. Even if he has been uncivil (which I am neither denying nor affirming), the tack of your remarks are a squidge too confrontational, and thus are somewhat unhelpful. In general, I find admins (I know you are not one) to resort to a confrontational stance far too often. Not that I never do, but I tend to save it in reserve. Just saying. &bull; Ling.Nut 06:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You can safely assume it has nothing to do with UNEF.  Enigma msg  06:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you here? You aren't an admin. I searched for your username on article talk, didn't see it. This kind of crowding in persuades folks that they are being ganged up on, which always makes the situation deteriorate. &bull; Ling.Nut 06:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that you're wrong.  Enigma msg  06:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You aren't an admin. yes. However, still irrelevant. My statement still stands: the admin presence, if any at all, should be limited to one and only one, and should be non-confrontational. Please feel free to disengage. &bull; Ling.Nut 06:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not an admin, please feel free to tell JRHammond to withdraw all the insults directed at me based on an alleged admin action I took, which is of course, quite impossible.  Enigma msg  06:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are in fact an admin, and you have stated that you feel insulted. Now you MUST disengage! respect the community's consensus on this issue, before you get yourself into trouble by blocking etc.. Disengage, preferably permanently, and you'll be taking the high road. &bull; Ling.Nut 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. First you tell me to leave because I'm not an admin. Then you say I am an admin, but it's irrelevant and I must leave anyway. I must confess that I don't understand. Additionally, respect the community's consensus on what issue? I wasn't aware there was consensus on something related to JRHammond.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  07:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All paths lead to the same conclusion: first, if you aren't an admin, you really have absolutely no business being here, period, since you apparently aren't party to the 6-daywar discussions. Second, since you are an admin, you lost all standing in the situation when you became insulted. A pissed-ff admin no longer has the higher concerns of Wikipedia at heart, and no longer represents Wikipedia as such, but is just a pissed-off person in possession of punitive buttons. The community's consensus is that involved admins should not block. By extension, there is no rule that says you absolutely must leave, but if you stay then you show a complete disregard for the spirit of that consensus, which is: admins should be impartial, and capable of cool reason. Does that seem clearer? &bull; Ling.Nut 07:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am capable of cool reason. All my comments and actions reflect that. I did not say that I feel insulted, merely that he insulted me, which you can see for yourself. If I was just a "pissed-off person", I probably would've blocked him for the attacks. Instead, I let it slide, because I don't block people based on their attacks on me. I can handle it. Rather, I chose to monitor the situation. The fact that I'm not involved in the 6 day war thing is precisely why I have standing.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  07:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Enigmaman, if you feel insulted by my comments to you a long time ago, you are welcome to provide some alternative explanation for why you blocked on the grounds that I had violated 3RR when I had in fact not done so. As I said before, it's quite possible I was simply being unimaginative, and I'm quite open to other possibilities than those I mentioned, if you can come up with any. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I disregard these statements (for reasons I will explain), and request that you disengage – permanently. The fact that you made the effort to remind people of the alleged insults, completely out of context, reveals the relevance of these alleged insults to your presence here. If you think an admin should be here, that may be true, but the admin who should be here is someone other than you. Please permanently disengage. &bull; Ling.Nut 07:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It was in context. That's one of the things this thread was about before I even joined it.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  07:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This thread is about OR, not about Enigmaman. Moreover... eh, I don't know how to say it. If I were you, which I am not, I would disengage simply because a non-belligerent editor had presented a strong case that I should, even if I did not agree with that case. Principles matter. Being above suspicion matters. And I, Ling.Nut, no longer believe you have standing. &bull; Ling.Nut 07:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You've made that quite clear, and it's also quite irrelevant. Regardless of whether I'm an admin or not, you have no authority to tell me where I may comment. This thread is not about me, and I never said it was. It is, however, about JRHammond, OR, and his persistent incivility. Therefore, my comments were completely within the context of the thread.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  07:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Authority? <bink, blink>. Who said anything about authority? This is a discussion of wiki-principles regarding the preferred roles of admins. I see no evidence that you have a WP:CLUE at all about these things, regrettably. And I do not mean that as an insult. &bull; Ling.Nut 08:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. You repeatedly told me to leave, even though you have no authority to tell me to do anything whatsoever. Regarding the preferred roles of admins, I'm quite familiar with those, and I'm doing nothing wrong here. I merely commented on the discussion, and that set off your insistence that I leave. Regarding what you said earlier, if "a non-belligerent editor had presented a strong case that I should [leave]", I would. On the other hand, if a belligerent editor tells me that I'm clueless and repeatedly insists I leave without giving any strong reasoning whatsoever, beyond vague comments about "community consensus" and the "preferred roles of admins", then I'm less inclined to leave. I hope you understand.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  14:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just read yet another of your articles "Yes, Jews Killed Jesus, Too—The Bible Told Me So by Jeremy R. Hammond".--Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it would be fairly difficult to make the case that that article is NPOV. Also difficult to say that later passages (the ones that apply to modern politics) are irrelevant. But nonetheless, this doesn't really change the dynamics of the interactions. I think everyone involved in the Six Day War article has flown their colors and made their positions clear from the outset, by the content of their posts. That doesn't change the fact that we must move forward, and within the framework of Wikipedia's editing model, we must do so together. &bull; Ling.Nut 21:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What would be fairly difficult to do is make the case that that article is NOT NPOV. You're welcome to try. If you're going to make such comments, it would seem incumbent upon you to do so, which you haven't. Short of that, you will kindly refrain from making such suggestions. JRHammond (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I should have said "that editorial", not "that article". Though an editorial is indeed one type of an article, the word "article" is ambiguous in the context of the current discussion. The text that Mbz1 linked to is an editorial. Editorials are, by definition, NPOV. And that's fine. They're supposed to be that way. They express a position. They are different from Wikipedia in that respect. &bull; Ling.Nut 23:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that conclusions are drawn does not make an article biased. Again, I think you'd be challenged to make an argument that it's in any way, shape, or form biased. In any event, I don't see the relevance of any of this here. My point is that Mbz1 made an insinuation about it, and I'm simply trying to keep the record straight so as not to have my work mischaracterized as something it is not. JRHammond (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You do know, that according to European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights expressed in its working definition for antisemitism claiming that Jews, or Israelis for that matter, killed Jesus is considered to be an act of antisemitism, don't you? Maybe you also read somewhere that the title of your article was used by murders during Jewish pogroms? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I wasn't aware that the authors of the gospels were anti-Semites. Actually 3 of them were Jews themselves, so I guess they must have been "self-hating Jews", huh? Oh yeah, in case you didn't know, Jesus was a Jew, too. JRHammond (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be useful to recall that our goal is to work on an encyclopedia article. These discussions, while certainly personally important to each of you, are not in any way relevant to the task of writing an encyclopedia article.&bull; Ling.Nut 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My sentiments exactly, Ling.Nut. Thanks for demonstrating some sense. Breath of fresh air. JRHammond (talk) 01:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

 * I added "with far-reaching implications for global affairs". I know you still wanna fix "unresolved political status". I invite your suggestions for a better turn of phrase for that concept. &bull; Ling.Nut 05:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I've added a note and my own "approve" to my suggestions in the hope of getting more of the others to look at the issues I raised and offer their views. I'm all for getting it up as is for now, but would like to continue working on it in the meantime/afterward. JRHammond (talk) 06:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we already covered the victim/aggressor bit, and you said it was OK. That sentence ("Israel and Egypt have both been described as either the victim or the aggressor") absolutely does contain the Arab POV that Israel was the aggressor. Moreover, it licenses the body text of the article to discuss and analyze that point, within an appropriate section or subsection.
 * Saying that Israel's defensive ability was improved because its borders (disputed/occupied/controlled whatever; I know they are not legal borders, I'm just talking here) does not imply that attack was imminent. It merely merely states the obvious: that Israel's defensive ability was improved. I intend to offer cites that say simply that Israel's defensive ability was improved, and that it was a wee-tiny country with major cities in easy bombing range of its foes. I do not intend to state, or imply or suggest, that this means that the Arab nations intended to attack. It just means it made it somewhat less easy for them to do so. If other editors try to use that as an excuse to say the war was preemptive, I'll move their text into an appropriate "preemptive attack" section or subsection.
 * Mmm, maybe I should copy this to article talk. But the threads are getting convoluted and confusing. &bull; Ling.Nut 12:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See all comments above, PLUS I'm gonna significantly reorder the sentences (preserving all text). Look again about 5 minutes after this post. &bull; Ling.Nut 12:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been watching this argument for a while. I find that someone like JRHammond, whose hung up (more like obsessed) on a people and an event that may or may not have happened more than 2000 years ago ("Yes, Jews Killed Jesus, Too—The Bible Told Me So by Jeremy R. Hammond"), is not fit to edit in the topic area. This is especially true in light of his battlegroung mentality. I also believe that with respect to JRHammond, in light of his articles and his singular obsession with one particular group of people, there's more going on here than just his "concern" for NPOV.--71.169.45.155 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * JR. Every single point – every single point – of the viewpoint that you are placing on the table is included in the sandbox version. Let me reiterate that: every single point of the viewpoint you are presenting is in the lead. I repeat: Every. Single. One. You are thoroughly and fully represented in the text of the lead. Absolutely nothing from your viewpoint is omitted.
 * You keep saying the lead doesn't show the Arab Pov. Instead, what it actually does is bend over backward to present that POV. The bit about "occupied Lebanon" is now front and center, in the first paragraph. The bit about "defensive borders" has been moved to a lower position, placed along with other consequences, in no way highlighted. The UNEF bit is temporarily in, and may remain in, if and only if I ever have time to research your cites. The verbiage licensing a discussion describing Israel as the aggressor is in.
 * Quite frankly, you are now banging your shoe on the table for the sole reason that you want absolutely every detail to be absolutely exactly as you want it. JR, please listen: It ain't gonna happen. The Israeli POV has been noticeably deemphasized as a direct result of your objections. However, under no circumstances can it be removed. It cannot be removed. Wikipedia is not an editorial. Please do wrap your head around this idea: you will not get everything you want. [In fact, you have already gotten many, many things.] You will not get the text exactly as you want it. It will not happen that way. it cannot happen that way. The sooner you accommodate yourself to the Wikipedia way of doing things, rather than demanding that Wikipedia accommodate itself to you, the faster we will make progress.&bull; Ling.Nut 02:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is why I stopped commenting on the lead. I am afraid it is no use. No matter what it will look as yet another article by Jeremy R. Hammond, in which 3/4 is disinformation with a bad taste.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * JR: Please see my comments above.
 * Mbz1, I welcome any and all productive contributions you may present. I truly want you to not only have a seat at the table, but to use that seat in order to present your facts and views about the topic. However, I think I might suggest that you and JR both pursue a policy of benevolently refraining from talking about each other. When he comments about you (as he has), you get angry and walk away. If you comment about him, he may get angry and walk away, or worse yet, reply in an even more unproductive manner. I am NOT pointing fingers here. I assign no blame. I am not taking sides. I am concerned that in the future, one of you, either you or him, may become too angry to contribute productively. That would be regrettable. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ling, I've stated my case on the Talk page. Instead of telling me my suggestiosn "ain't gonna happen", why don't you let the consensus-building process decide what is or is not going to happen? I'm content to do so, so why are you not? Wikipedia policy demands it. You seem to think you have the final say in the matter. You do not. As of right now, it's two to one in favor of implementing my suggestions.

Mbz1, You claim I've presented "disinformation with a bad taste". I challenge you to substantiate that statement. You'll find you're unable to do so. JRHammond (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no ordinal ranking presented or implied in the Five Pillars. However, very much as spelled out in a speech by SCOTUS Jusice Souter about the US Constitution, "its language grants and guarantees many good things, and good things that compete with each other and can never all be realized, all together, all at once." I am not the final arbiter of anything at all. You are absolutely correct in that regard. If the discussion reaches an impasse, then woe unto us, we will be forced to enter the abysmal morass know as the Dispute resolution process. That process is nearly guaranteed to proceed at a glacial pace, sucking up tremendous resources in terms of time and energy, and very possibly being the direct cause of some editor(s) losing their cool and entering even deeper into other resolution processes. In the course of that process, however, Wikipedia's community may be forced to choose a situation-specific ranking (as Justice Souter intimated) between the competing goods of safeguarding WP:CONSENSUS and doing the same for WP:NPOV. I deeply hope we will not proceed down that path. However, it may not happen that way. As always, I will continue to discuss, debate and negotiate with you (and with Mbz1, and with any and all constructive participants) in the best interests of the article. &bull; Ling.Nut 03:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see any reason to believe there will be any conflict between consensus and NPOV. The only trouble I see is that so few editors express their approval/disapproval of specific propositions. We need to get more editors involved. I'm not sure how to go about encouraging others to do so, beyond the calls I've already placed. Any ideas? JRHammond (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You do not, do you? Well, here's why: The forces aren't equal. Jewish girl santiago.jpg 2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania4.JPG. Any more questions?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

main point versus supporting detail: UNEF

 * JR, I have spent a great deal of time tracking down cites about Israel refusing UN troops. Please listen carefully to what I say:
 * Everyone – whether Pro-Israel, pro-Arab, neutral; whether major source or minor source; doesn't matter – everyone mentions Nasser's request/demand that UNEF troops be withdrawn from Egypt.
 * Your point about Israel refusing a re-request by Thant is almost never mentioned anywhere.
 * When it is mentioned, it is never a main point, but always a supporting detail
 * When it is mentioned it is always in the context of an Arab viewpoint, criticizing Israel (I found, for example, some comments by quotes by Quincy Wright and Michael Barton Akehurst).
 * Oren does not spend pages discussing it, as you stated. I cannot see p. 72, but I can see the following pages, and they are not about that. He treats it as a detail, not a major fact. That is probably to be expected, as he is a pro-Israel biased source.
 * Finkelstein is the prototype of a biased pro-Arab source.


 * For these reasons, it seems to me that the conclusion cannot be avoided: your point is a supporting detail in arguments from an Arab perspective. It is never dealt with as a main point. By the simple logic of composition studies (main points in introduction; supporting points in body) your point does not belong in the lead.
 * It certainly DOES belong in an appropriate subsection that lays out the Arab perspective.
 * I am removing it from the sandbox.
 * You may be tempted to use logical arguments to support your statement that it must be left in. Absolutely no one on Talk:Six day war seems to realize that our logical arguments = our analysis = original research. To repeat: Logical arguments are original research. Analysis of source texts is the only proper procedure.
 * I'm gonna move the sandbox lead into the article very soon. I fear you will edit war to insist that that point be reinserted in the lead. please refrain from doing so.
 * I'm gonna cc this post to article talk. Thanks. &bull; Ling.Nut 03:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

don't go to 3RR
The more blocks you have on your block log, the more and more you begin to smell like a "black hat" kinda editor. It just creates that impression. Just let it sit for a while. &bull; Ling.Nut 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've made precisely one edit within a period of weeks. I understand and appreciate your concern, but let me worry about me. JRHammond (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood and acknowledged. &bull; Ling.Nut 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

cites

 * You need cites for the "annex" bit. The one cite I have seen qualifies it with "purportedly" Take your time. Find the best ones. Don't drag Larry King-like sources into it. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Moreover, as I suggested earlier, I see this as a point for a footnote.. &bull; Ling.Nut 02:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. I trust the Quartet, the United Nations Security Council, and the International Court of Justice are satisfactory non-Larry-King-like sources. JRHammond (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion is too nonstop. I need to take care of real life. Think I'll take a cool-off wikibreak for perhaps three days. Hope the lead doesn't change too much in the interim. &bull; Ling.Nut 03:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Current edit war

 * Please don't think I'm not helping you in this current back and forth. For one thing, I have no knowledge of the point being discussed, and it would take me some time to research it. For another, I'm tired of being mired in this back-and-forth quicksand. I would like to attempt to write/rewrite another complete section (see my latest post to Harlan's talk for two ideas). And last but not least, I am still thinking of just not doing anything for perhaps three days. A bit of rest wold bring a refreshed mind and spirit. &bull; Ling.Nut 07:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to with "edit war"/"current back and forth". JRHammond (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, your most recent edit, reverting an IP edit I think... but doesn't matter. Just know that I will not discriminate in who I help etc. Recall earlier events on this page. &bull; Ling.Nut 09:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. I made an edit, and Mr. IP reverted it with the objection that I didn't provide a source and requesting I take it to talk. I complied and posted an extensive discussion of what was wrong with the wording and the reasons for my edit, and included sources when I edited it the second time. If it gets reverted again, I'll refrain from reverting the revert and let my argument on Talk speak for itself so that others may do so. Thanks. JRHammond (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a violation of the 1RR I have set up on the article, you were reverted yesterday. Since you did it after I had already made it clear what was meant by the 1RR ban and you even acknowledged you agreed with it there's no doubt you understood. Just because you added some citations does not mean you have achieved consensus with the other editors about the material being added. An article ban is in order for violating the 1RR on the page. Per general sanctions you're banned from editing Six-Day War for 48 hours after this notice. --WGFinley (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The objection was over the source. I added further sources clearly establishing the fact to satisfy that objection. What's the problem? Legalistic adherence to the letter of your "rules" rather than enforcing the clear spirit of Wikipedia policy only helps add to the problem, instead of helping. You know as well as I do that the previous wording of the article was FALSE. I corrected it, thus improving the article. According to WP:3RR leeway shall be given to editors who improve the article. Yet you block me? What sense does this make? None. JRHammond (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Block & Six-Day War Article Ban
For willful violation of an article ban outlined above you are now blocked for 7 days from editing. Your are banned for two weeks from editing Six-Day War. You've had numerous calls to work with others to build consensus, but have chosen to edit war instead, in this case willfully. You've left me with no other choice. As this block and article-ban are part of WP:GS you need to post any appeal on WP:AE. --WGFinley (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding I need to use the following template to appeal this block. It's not clear to me how to properly use this template, or the procedure here, but I'll do my best to comply with the process:

As indicated above you were banned from this article for another 7 days in addition to your 7-day block. The article is protected and you have introduced a lengthy change to the page, you shouldn't do that, when you were just banned from the article. Further, you're continuing to disrupt the talk page, you are carrying the edit war from the article on to the talk page. You need to stop or you will be banned from the article. --WGFinley (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Take your baseless accusations and your threats elsewhere, Wgfinley. JRHammond (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your an amusing guy, Guy. You tell me I can't participate in improving the article because of a ban/block that already expired, you accuse me of edit warring despite the fact that the article is protected and I couldn't edit it if I wanted to, and you threaten to ban me for introducing a solution to a problematic passage in the article that was approved of and implemented by an administrator. Too funny. Have a nice day, Guy. JRHammond (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by <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) 06:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : <1 week block, see above notification of block by WGFinley.>


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by <JRHammond>
<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). 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Result of the appeal by <JRHammond>

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

Appeal
Hello, JRHammond. I have copied your appeal to WP:AE. Whilst doing so, I have also fixed the non-working links. CIreland (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. As I noted before, I'm unfamiliar with the process and the template was a bit confusing for me, so I hope it wasn't too much of an inconvenience. Apologies if it was. JRHammond (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a voice elsewhere, as I'm currently blocked, but I would observe that WGFinley is violating his own rule and reverting an edit multiple times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379326420&oldid=379314087 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Six-Day_War&diff=379402012&oldid=379397740

He's indicated he are reverting because people are violating 1RR. The purpose of the rules is to create a civil and productive environment in which editors can work on improving articles. WGFinley is enforcing rules for enforcing rules sake, with total disregard for the spirit of those rules and the merits of edits being made. This is more counterproductive than helpful.

He is undoing an edit that improves the article by stating a fact that is well sourced to definitive authoritative sources in favor of an edit that consists of an unsourced claim that is demonstrably false.

The merit of an edit must be taken into account. 1RR must follow the basic policy of 3RR, which clearly states that editors who revert to maintain the quality of an article will be given leeway. Furthermore, it states explicitly that reverting unsourced material does not count as a violation of the rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:3rr#The_three-revert_rule

The 3RR policy on giving leeway to editors who maintain or improve the quality of an article states this with regard to featured article. But the principle applies to all articles. WP:IAR states: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IAR

The 3RR policy exception with reverting unsourced material is with regard to biographical material, but, again, the principle applies to all material. According to WP:BLP: “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

But does not only apply to biographical information. “Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information”. “It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.” This is “particularly true of negative information about living persons”, but “is true of all information”. http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html

If anyone thinks that it is somehow helpful towards the goal of maintaining or improving the quality of articles to revert an edit inserting a well-sourced factual statement back to an unsourced demonstrably false statement, I would welcome an explanation of how that could be possible, because I come to the opposite conclusion. JRHammond (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I will copy this over. --WGFinley (talk) 01:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. JRHammond (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:RomaC posted: Mbz1 has made an attempt at possibly outing an editor, perhaps that should be dealt with.

User:Mbz1 responded: ''The so called "outing comment" was copied from the user's talk page. It has been present there for quite some time. So there was absolutely no outing here...''

It's true that Mbz1 copied it from my talk page. What he neglected to mention is that he copied HIS OWN COMMENTS.

User:WGFinley argues that: This action has nothing to do with the merits of the material. But as I outlined above, it has everything to do with the merits of the edit. The whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia rules and guidelines is to further goal of maintaining and improving articles. To say that the merits of the edit "has nothing to do with" it is to enforce the letter of the law in clear disregard for and contrary to its spirit, purpose, and intent. As outlined above, Wikipedia policy demands that the merit of an edit be taken into account. Those arguing otherwise dismiss the entire purpose of the rules they feign to be "enforcing".

Again, 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? Whose edit is in violation of the spirit, purpose and intent of all Wikipedia policy?:

(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.

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.

The answer is self-evident. JRHammond (talk) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sandstein stated: JRHammond's appeal addresses only the circumstances that led to the ban, but these do not matter here: since he appeals the block, not the ban, the only proper subject of discussion is whether the ban was indeed violated and that violation properly sanctioned.

This is a fallacious argument. It follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitimate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed, and thus no violation occurred. JRHammond (talk) 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Timotheus_Canens stated: ''Looks like the discussion has died. Barring objections from uninvolved admins, I'm going to call this appeal declined. There's no "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" to overturn the block; if anything, the consensus is to the contrary.''

(1) Not a single admin has substantively addressed my argument for overturning the block. Not one.

(2) Two of the users arguing for the validity of the block are not uninvolved. User:WGFinley has demonstrated a lack of good faith in previously blocking me on a spurious pretext and violating WP:OUTING by posting information personally identifying me. User:Mbz1 is heavily involved in editing the Six Day War article and any one of you can go and see that he has strongly disagreed with a number of my edits/suggestions, and thus he has an ulterior motive in seeing me remain blocked. His lack of good faith is also demonstrated with his own violation of WP:OUTING in posting information personally identifying me (as User:RomaC rightly observed).

(3) User:tariqabjotu suggested my appeal should be denied on the basis of his argument that the merits/demerits of an edit are irrelevant. That is a fallacy, as I've already outlined. The whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia guidelines is to help maintain and improve articles. Therefore the question of whether my edit improved the article or not is absolutely relevant. Enforcing "rules" for enforcement's sake, with clear disregard for and contrary to the purpose and intent of those rules is a blatant abuse of admin authority that is counterproductive.

(4) User:Sandstein suggested my appeal should be denied on the basis that the circumstances leading to the "ban" are irrelevant. As I've already pointed out, that is a fallacy. Again, it follows that if the ban was wrongful and illegitmate, and therefore null and void, then therefore so was the block that followed. Thus, no violation occurred. Again, not one admin has substantively addressed this valid point.

(5) The rest of the users participating have not taken up the position you attribute to them in suggesting a "consensus" has been achieved. User:Nandesuka did not take up a position, but merely observed that two of my edits were substantially the same. He did not substantively address even a single point in my argument for overturning the block. User:PhilKnight didn't post anything relevant to my appeal, and didn't take up or even suggest an opinion one way or the other. User:Unomi asked "Can someone point me to where this particular edit was argued against? I can only seem to find the arguments for inclusion." Yet received no reply. This goes to the heart of the issue, with regard to the invalidity of and prejudicial nature of the ban, implemented by User:WGFinley wrongfully and on the basis of false characterizations, such as that I've refused to engage other editors on the talk page, which is an outright lie (as any of you can see for yourselves; see above).

I request that UNINVOLVED admins capable of non-prejudicial judgment SUBSTANTIVELY address my argument and reply to my points. If I've made any error in fact or logic in my argument for overturning the block, kindly point out where. Admins will find you're unable to do so. My facts are correct. My logic is undeniable. This goes to the heart of the very intent and purpose of Wikipedia policies. If policies are enforced in a manner that violates the purpose and spirit with which they exist, clearly this is an abuse of authority and counterproductive. My appeal should be accepted on that basis. JRHammond (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Copied over, you should message someone when you post so it can be moved over to AE. --WGFinley (talk) 04:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it really possible to message someone when you're blocked? --Frederico1234 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

leeriness

 * I did explain; search for "encapsulate". That thread is disintegrating into incoherence. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to tucker down 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 isn;t surprising that others might be getting frustrated. Relax and figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If people continue to employ ad hominem arguments, I will continue to observe the fact that they have employed ad hominem arguments. By definition, as a logical fallacy, doing so is an act of vanity. Similarly, if people demonstrate hypocrisy, I will continue to observe the fact that they are being hypocritical. The solution to both problems is not for me not to observe these behaviors, but for the people engaging in them to cease and desist from doing so. Engaging in such behaviors is not conducive towards a fruitful working environment. So go lecture Ling.Nut on his talk page for employing ad hominem arguments and being hypocritical, but kindly spare me the sermon. Finally, you seem to have a problem with me making great efforts to improve the article (i.e. "flooding the talk page with text"). If you have any problems with my objections/suggestions, etc., you're welcome to state your reasons on the talk page. I trust you would do so without the use of ad hominem arguments (or other logical fallacies), and without hypocrisy. Cheers. JRHammond (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You've improved nothing. All your arguments are products of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and your wall-to-wall texts are frankly, dizzying.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Jiujitsuguy, your entitled to your opinions. But I'm not sure I agree with you that one can present too many facts and sources to support one's objections/suggestions. JRHammond (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War Ban
In accordance with discretionary sanctions related to Palestine-Israel conflict articles you are banned from editing Six-Day War and its talk page indefinitely effective immediately. 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.

In other words, you will be disruptive if you consider it necessary you will venue shop by abusing the template and believe proper usage of it is "unreasonable". and that you expect the changes to be made.  Further, you are uncivil to other editors, you accuse them of making personal attacks where there are none,   , which appears to be your response to anyone who disagrees with you.

Admins and the editors of that page have been more than patient, many have tried to work with you yet you continue to refuse (also in diffs above). In essence, you are a textbook case of tendentious editing. Most of all, from that essay I would share the following with you:
 * First and foremost, however bad you believe the faults of your accusers are, think long and hard about your own behaviour. Critique it in your mind with the same vigor you critique theirs. Is there not at least a germ of truth in what they say? Have you perhaps been less civil than you might have been? Have you provided high quality citations from reliable secondary sources to back your edits? In addition, it may be a good idea to scrutinize all your behavior this way, even if you are not presently involved in a dispute, so that such disputes may not arise in the first place.

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. This ban will be enforced with blocks if it is violated. If you disagree with this ban you can place an appeal on AE by requesting an arbitration enforcement appeal. --WGFinley (talk) 04:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be better to admit to your mistakes and show that you plan on rectifying them instead of being defensive over at your appeal. Cptnono (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Every single pretext User:Wgfinley stated as the basis for his ban is completely and demonstrably spurious, as I outlined in my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you believe that then you should not be working on the article. Also, instead of pushing buttons, try posting your responses in your section. He has asked you in edit summaries twice now yet you keep on doing it. I do believe moving them and giving you a message here would have worked better but that doesn't change the fact that you keep on doing it. You really need to take a step back if your frustration is causing this much strife.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that I shouldn't be working on the article is your opinion, and has no basis in fact. As I said, every one of his stated pretexts is demonstrably spurious. I'm happy to post my responses in my section. I didn't know I was committing any error in responding in the other sections, and when I did so, I hadn't seen any requests not to do so. I'll go there now and replace them. JRHammond (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My replies now appear in my section. I had no intention of "pushing buttons", and such presumptions of lack of good faith are part of the real problem here. JRHammond (talk) 07:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 242
I would urge caution in your editing of this article. It is the center of the dispute you've been banned from Six-Day War for. If the disruption relocates to UN Res 242 you are looking at a Six-Day War topic ban. Please heed the words of caution and don't do that --WGFinley (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For example, things to avoid, edits like this. --WGFinley (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 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?


 * Do you expect me to take your suggesting that asking someone to answer a question whether they have an objection to a proposed edit or not is somehow bad behavior seriously? Do you have nothing better to do than harass me with threats and interfere with my efforts to improve articles? JRHammond (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just trying to make you aware that article is directly related to the one you're banned from. One might consider that gaming your ban, I'm hoping you'll use the opportunity to constructively work with other editors.  Using a combative tone like that diff may hinder that.  Best of luck.  --WGFinley (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wgfinley, the underlying presumption upon which you express your ostensible concern is unwarranted:


 * 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?


 * This request for clarification is not the least bit "combative". On the contrary, here, as always, I was being perfectly civil and reasonable. JRHammond (talk) 01:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

important summary

 * Hope you didn't miss WGFinley's message above... I consider my statement here to be the most important thing I have said. Sorry to trouble you. &bull; Ling.Nut 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On WP:TE
First let me say that I harbor no ill will toward you, although you seem to think so. I did look back in your talk page history to find your web site, and I have to say I enjoyed reading it, and I wish I had the time to maintain a web site like that. It is commendable that although your web site content is closely related to your topics of involvement on Wikipedia, you manage to keep them separate. I'm sure there must be a temptation at times to blur the boundaries.

Try to understand that on Wikipedia, facts aren't everything; interaction matters too. Actually, it matters a lot. You appear to be interacting well on Talk:United Nations Security Council Resolution 242.

Just a word of friendly advice regarding your new appeal: Asserting that WP:TE isn't relevant because you believe it applies only to articles, likely won't fly with most administrators and seasoned editors. The main section of that essay, "Characteristics of problem editors" is all about editors without regard, in many cases, to where the edits occur. Multiple editors and administrators have characterized your conduct as "tendentious" because they see some of those bullet points as descriptive of your conduct. You may disagree, but bear in mind that these observations are being made by seasoned people who have been on Wikipedia a lot longer than you (or me, for that matter); people who know it when they see it, from past experience.

You may want to modify your appeal accordingly, with that knowledge in mind. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the words, Amatulic. Please be assured that despite our recent past differences, I similarly bear no ill will towards you. On WP:TE, we seem to again have differing interpretations of Wikipedia policy. It in fact 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." Going through the given characteristics, they clearly apply to edits to articles, not comments on talk pages. The few that would also apply to talk pages are irrelevant and inapplicable to my case (e.g. "You demand that other editors search for sources to support text that you added"). I will amend my appeal accordingly to make a note of this. JRHammond (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may want to look at Wikilawyering too, which is also regarded as tendentious behavior. I bring this up because you seem to be fairly new on Wikipedia and may not be aware of it. Be careful of treading into that territory.
 * WP:TE isn't an official document, neither a policy nor guideline, but an essay, so it isn't necessarily precise or comprehensive. I'm just sayin'... others view WP:TE as a description of behavior, not specifically in the article space. And although neither policy nor guideline, long-established essays such as that do carry weight. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Copy that. Thanks again. JRHammond (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I posted what I hope will be seen as non-judgmental comments here. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Outing
Hi JRHammond, you continue claiming that I am violation of in WP:OUTING. It is a very serious accusation. The user, who was outing me was blocked indefinitely. So, either file a new request on an/i or any other board of your choice about me "outing" you, and prove I did, or stop saying everywhere I outed you because a false accusation of outing is as bad as outing itself. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I provided the diff proving you violated WP:OUTING. No sense denying it. JRHammond (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and clarification
Thanks for taking the time to examine the issue (regarding my proposed edit) so thoroughly. I wish to clarify a number of errors and misunderstandings, however. You removed the comments from the "approve" section to the "disapprove" on a number of bases. I've responded there, but wish to reiterate and make a few additional observations with you directly, so as not to clutter that up more than necessary:

(1) If I understand you, you are saying the phraseology of the U.S. draft and U.K. draft "hardly changes". But that is not correct. The drafts are significantly different. The statements by the Syrian and Soviet delegates on their positions on the U.S. draft cannot be construed to constitute their views with regard to the U.K. draft. Notice, for example, the Soviets disapproved of the U.S. draft, but accepted the U.K. draft with the understanding that it called for a full withdrawal.

(2) You suggested the statement from the Indian delegate quoted was made following the vote. Look again. It was made prior to the vote. I don't see what difference that makes anyways, but it's a moot point as it is not correct.

(3) You suggested there was an issue with mentioning conditionality of withdrawal. But the only place where this issue is included in my proposal is where I say "The Israelis had argued that resolution did not call for unconditional withdrawal." It seems to me you had already found that to be factually accurate, when you originally expressed approval and that there was no WP:OR here, so I'm not sure why you've changed your mind on this point. Could you please explain? I seems to me you're confusing the issue of the extent of withdrawal with the issue of conditionality of withdrawal. These are separate issues. To illustrate, logicially, a full withdrawal could still be conditional. Correct me if I'm mistaken about your view in this regard.

(4) See my comment on the page.

Thanks again. JRHammond (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JR, thank you for your message. I have responded in the talk page. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I struck the sentence you see as problematic. I hope you'll find the new wording satisfactorily addresses your concern. Also, you mentioned something about Accredited quoting from Caradon, and said this "refutes the Indian speech". First of all, Accredited quoted from Eban, not Caradon, and secondly, what do you mean by saying Eban's statement "refutes" the Indian delegate's statement? Certainly, he was rejecting India's understanding of the resolution. But that's precisely the point I'm making in the proposed edit. JRHammond (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JR, let's keep discussion on the discussion page, so that other editors can weigh in. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your discussion with Administrators
Hi JRHammond: Having accidentally stumbled across your closely reasoned presentations to administrators, I thought I'd drop a note to say that you find yourself in a commonly encountered exercise that, unfortunately, rarely proves fruitful. It has been my extensive experience that logic and fact has little to do with success. You might find some solace in my experiences and (fruitless) advice to Administrators on my User pages. Brews ohare (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)