Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive68

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MarshallBagramyan
''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 : – Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, beginning from July 23, topic-banned for three months from pages or edits related to Armenia or Azerbaijan.


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by MarshallBagramyan
Just over a month ago, I was imposed with a three month topic ban by administrator Sandstein. The topic ban followed on the heels of a counter-complaint by a user named Tuscumbia, whom I had previously filed an arbitration complaint for edit warring. The result was that both of us were topic banned from editing articles relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan for three months (our exchange on the article in question can be found in whole here: ).

I initially did not contest the ban because I, paradoxically enough, viewed it as a refreshing way of backing away from the acrimonious debates and arguments I had been involved in. My ban, however, was not imposed because of edit-warring, as Tuscumbia's was. Rather, it was partially due to comments perceived to be incivil. I had used the word "stinky" to describe an argument used by Tuscumbia on an article talk page, and as I reflect upon it now, it does seem to be a rather poor choice of wording (the word "poor" would probably have worked instead) and I'm now at odds at how that even came about. The other reason the ban was imposed was because of my contention that a certain line of reasoning was consistently being used by the editors from Azerbaijan. However, I want to stress, in no uncertain terms, that this argument was simply intended as an observation of a pattern I found troubling on Wikipedia - far from, as Sandstein believed, me attempting to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between two or more ethnic groups. Perhaps in this case, too, my word selection could have been improved, but I wish the reviewers here to clearly understand that no malice was intended on my part.

I also came to the belated realization that Tuscumbia and I were literally not understanding each other on the article we were editing. He continued to press me to provide him with "extra details" of a book I had cited, without realizing that I was employing the Chicago Manual of Style, which, after citing a source in full more than once, does not necessarily require that the publication information, publication date, etc. be reproduced in following citations. Apparently, he was not familiar with the CMS and did not understand that the following citations were all coming from the same book (a problem compounded by the fact that there are 4 volumes with the same title but different subtitles). Gallons of ink, so to speak, were spilled in the reverts that followed, with neither one of us actually realizing the gist of the problem (or lack thereof)

I did not bother challenging the block because, as I said, I viewed it as a sort of mixed-blessing. In the month since I have been banned, I've been allowed to go on temporary wiki-breaks and edit other articles which I have had an interest in. Be that as it may, I feel that the block was imposed on a misunderstanding or two and I wish that my three month block simply be commuted to the amount of time that I have been editing under restrictions (1 month, plus change). For good measure, perhaps the imposition of a 1 week revert parole for the next 2-3 weeks can also be added on the same articles in question.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. It is wrong to misinterpret my comment and dismiss it as simply another case of someone trying to incite ethnic antagonism on Wikipedia. My intention was not at all as you described it. While I do not wish to dwell on the validity of my argument, I do freely admit that it was poorly formulated and that I could have exerted a greater effort to elucidate it with more proper wording. In regards to my lack of editing activity: my contributions prior to my ban may have focused on articles relating to Armenia but they also included numerous articles on films, video games, Byzantium, the Middle Ages, the Middle East, the Soviet Union/Russia, among other topics. It is also, after all, summer and hence vacation time, and over the past few weeks I have been away from the computer for long spells, and have had sporadic, if any, access to the internet, preventing me from carrying out edits which I otherwise would have done.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel that NovaSkola's comments below are inappropriately intrusive so I will simply address Stifle's comments for the moment. I'm not quite sure what sort of "convincing" would be satisfactory but I can only reiterate that I am not asking for a full lifting of the ban. I have suggested that, in exchange for it, that I be placed in revert parole for a period of time. I can in the meantime promise to try edit more articles outside of my "niche" as Sandstein has termed it but my limited access to the internet currently prevents me from doing so. I think the comments which landed me the ban in the first place were misconstrued, and given the generally intense atmosphere found on any article or talk page relating to Armenia or Azerbaijan, I can understand why it was imposed so rapidly in the first place. Like I said above, I didn't bother contesting it for a number of reasons, but I feel that the 3 month ban period does not at all correspond to the infraction that I committed. For lack of proper confidence-building measures, would the administrators instead be more amenable to commuting the ban from 3 months down to 2, and imposing 1-RR restrictions for the remainder of the period?--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The discussion leading to that ban can be found here. This appeal by MarshallBagramyan does not convince me that his comment at issue, "Falsely alleging POV is ... a stinky argument and one which has been vainly used by the Azerbaijanis time and time again", should not be understood as exactly the sort of nationalist battleground behavior that the remedy was intended to address, conceiving of Wikipedia as a contest between nationalities rather than a collaboration between individuals. I am also concerned that MarshallBagramyan's editing until the ban on July 23 seemed to be entirely focused on issues related to the area of conflict (ethno-national conflicts in the area in and around Armenia) and that he has since made very few content contributions. It is seldom helpful to the encyclopedia to focus one's editing entirely on a contested area, see WP:ARBR&I. The topic ban will help MarshallBagramyan demonstrate that he is indeed capable of editing neutrally outside his niche topic, which happens to be a particular focus of contention. Accordingly, I recommend that this appeal be declined.  Sandstein  05:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment concerning 's contribution below: Although I agree on the merits, I don't think that a user whose user page reads "God Bless Azerbaijan and My People!!!!" should post in the section designated for discussion among uninvolved editors.  Sandstein   11:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by MarshallBagramyan

 * Bearing in mind MarshallBagramyan has been sanctioned three times under A-A before, I am not sure if further leniency is merited here. I remain open to being convinced otherwise. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, this user has been warned too many times to given second chance. It is time put end to this gameplay.--NovaSkola (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it matter whether Marshall's original comment was correct? After all, the A-A sanctions were imposed because there are conflicting national factions (and Marshall is a leading member of one of them) on those articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by MarshallBagramyan

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

Appeal denied. Sandstein's action was reasonable. One way to convince us on a future appeal would be to list specific articles you'd like to edit, and say what changes you'd like to make. We make decisions around here based on what is best for the encyclopedia. If you can show how you would improve the encyclopedia, you may get a better result next time. Please think about this and wait a reasonable time before filing another appeal. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Captain Occam

 * User requesting enforcement : Wapondaponda (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision

See additional comments
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Using a proxy account Ferahgo the Assassin to canvass another user, Victor Chmara to revert a specific edit.  Victor Chmara went on to revert as per request
 * 2)   Ferahgo the Assassin canvasses for more help.  Ferahgo the Assassin does not want to do the job by themselves  for "fear of being labeled a meatpuppet".
 * 3) Meat states "For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity"
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Extension of topic ban to include proxy accounts.

Two weeks have passed since arbcom votes were finalized that led to Captain Occam's editing restrictions. During these two weeks, Captain Occam has gamed his editing restrictions, firstly by claiming that the race (classification of human) was not within the scope of his ban, and secondly by using a proxy account. Almathea, an uninvolved administrator who closed the Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam case, has suggested based on the investigation that Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should be considered as one entity. According to the proposed enforcement,
 * Should any user subject to a topic ban in this case violate that ban, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year, with the topic ban clock restarting at the end of each block.

Topic bans are a relatively mild editing restriction, as the IP below has mentioned, the topic ban still leaves an editor with more than 99.99 % of Wikipedia available for editing. Furthermore, the topic ban is only a temporary measure, in this case six months, meant to deescalate the dispute. Captain Occam will get an opportunity to work on race and intelligence articles again. But seeing that Captain Occam has not appreciated the opportunity given to him to prove that he has the overall interest of the project at heart, it is worth considering applying a temporary software restriction. Captain Occam is a high maintenance editor, and a software restriction might give some relief to the community. It would also give Captain Occam a chance to go cold turkey on race and intelligence matters as a preparation for the topic ban. As an involved editor, I have my biases, but I believe this suggestion will help deescalate the situation. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint: There are previous discussions concerning this matter at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Proposed decision and at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. In both these discussions Captain Occam and or Ferahgo the Assassin are advised to avoid the appearance of Meatpuppetry.

Responses

@Ferahgo the Assassin/Captain Occam. The whole purpose of using proxy accounts is to create as much ambiguity concerning the independence of the proxy account because proxy accounts will in some aspects be independent since they are a separate individuals from the main account. Ferahgo the Assassin states "Suppose for a second that I really am not a sock of Occam, and that I'm not a meatpuppet either". Yes I have been prepared to consider this, but unfortunately your editing pattern tells a different story. As of today you have made about 150 edits to wikipedia since 2006, most of these are unrelated to race and intelligence (dinosaurs etc which is great). However all of your edits to race and intelligence related material were to support Captain Occam or his POV. Therefore your editing record on race and intelligence issues has not demonstrated any independence. Given the ambiguity of proxy accounts, I consider it a perfect loophole ready for exploitation. Furthermore, it is in our human nature to have a soft spot for wiki-romances, so I believe this is going to be a difficult case to handle. But given the recent history of the dispute I think this is serious issue as once again, the community is being sidetracked from addressing content issues.

Though not essential, if Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam is accepted, the report may provide some useful information for this case.

Clarification

Captain Occam states "Ferahgo has also been registered at Wikipedia since 2008". Maybe that was the first edit, but according to Captain Occam's log, he registered his account on 11 November 2006 at 05:18. According to Ferhago the Assassin's log, the user registered their account on 11 November 2006 at 06:01.

Notifications


 * Captain Occam notified
 * Ferahgo the Assassin notified
 * Victor Chmara notified

Final comments I don't intend to pursue this matter any further, I think that all the information that is necessary to make a decision is in place, the only thing that is missing is the decision itself, that is whether or not Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should be considered a single entity WRT race and intelligence matters. The information may not be in the correct noticeboard, but it is still available nonetheless. I guess being an arbiter is a thankless job, one has to wade through mounds of information, for different cases, and then take on the burden of making the right decision, whatever that may be. As such, I don't see the need to burden the arbiters with more amendments, clarifications and other bureaucratic procedures while the case is still fresh.

However my opinion remains the same, Ferahgo the Assassin's involvement in R&I matters pretty much nullifies Captain Occam's topic ban. Many editors have given advice to Ferahgo the Assassin stating that it would be best for the user to voluntarily observe Captain Occam's topic ban. From my experience with Captain Occam, advice that is not in line with his predispositions is of little value to him, and this is evident as Ferahgo the Assassin/Captain Occam continue their involvement in race and intelligence maters. 

My main interest is in helping to deescalate the dispute, not specifically to get certain editors restricted or sanctioned, though I am of the opinion that temporary sanctions would help. Whatever deescalates the dispute is fine with me. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Captain Occam
This report seems to be an example of a recurring problem that exists at Wikipedia. The problem is that when one user expresses support for another’s viewpoint, many users seem to assume that this in itself is evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. I’ve been loosely following the Climate Change case that’s currently in progress, so I’m aware of how often that problem has arisen in this article: that when editors show up who have opinions similar to those of Scibaby, a known sockpuppeteer, this is taken as them being evidence of them being Scibaby sockpuppets even though in some cases they aren’t. One of the proposed remedies is specifically intended to address this problem: “An editor who brings forward the same or similar view as a blocked or banned user should not automatically be assumed to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet in the absence of other evidence.”

There is evidence that Ferahgo the Assassin and I know one another off-wiki, but is there evidence that they’re actually a meatpuppet—that is, a user who joined Wikipedia specifically in order to support me? Unlike Scibaby, I have no past history of sockpuppetry. Ferahgo has also been registered at Wikipedia since 2008, which was well before they or I were involved in these articles, and during the time since then at least nine-tenths of their edits have had nothing to do with supporting me or my viewpoint. If arbitrators are going to apply the same standards of evidence for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry here they intend to apply to the climate change article, I think it’s pretty obvious that this user’s having a viewpoint similar to mine and knowing me off-wiki are not enough to qualify.

For that matter, I don’t think Ferahgo has said enough about their viewpoint on this topic for anyone to know how similar their viewpoint is to mine. Muntuwandi writes, “However all of your edits to race and intelligence related material were to support Captain Occam or his POV.” Ferahgo has never edited any race and intelligence related articles themselves, and during the two years they’ve been registered they’ve probably left no more than 15 comments on talk pages related to this. Based on those 15 talk page comments, is it justified to state that this user “has not demonstrated any independence”? On the basis of the small amount they’ve revealed about their viewpoint on this topic, their viewpoint could also be considered consistent with the viewpoints expressed by David.Kane, Varoon Arya, DistributiveJustice, Bpesta22, or Rvcx, the last four of whom have neither been sanctioned nor accused of being socks. In the absence of any evidence other than this that Ferahgo the Assassin is a “proxy account” of mine, this request for them to be topic banned is about conduct not covered by the arbitration ruling, which according to the notice at the top of the page does not belong here.

If the community is being sidetracked from addressing content issues, it’s because of these constant accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I’m confident that if Ferahgo could be treated the same way on these articles as any other user, nobody would notice anything non-neutral or disruptive about their editing patterns. But instead, they’ve been treated with such hostility that it’s apparently made them afraid to participate in the articles at all, except by bringing up possible issues with other editors in their user talk. This hostility was initiated by Mathsci, who’s now topic banned for his history of personal attacks against other users, and his repeatedly cutting off Ferahgo’s attempts to participate in discussions about these articles with these accusations of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry was one example of the behavior for which Mathsci was sanctioned. Topic banning Mathsci was one step towards restoring normalcy to the editing environment on these articles, but if administrators want to stop the community from being sidetracked like this, they also need to stop this same behavior from being repeated by other users.--Captain Occam (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the request concerning Captain Occam

 * The concern is legitimate, as Captain Occam regularly asked other editors via their talk pages to help edit according to his point of view on various articles, as confirmed by the findings of fact in the recent ArbCom case. On Victor's behalf, I will say that I think he makes independent decisions about what to edit in articles and what to leave as is. Victor and I definitely don't think alike about how to edit the articles we both editwhich is why I expect to learn a lot from himand I would hate to see him be put in a position of being blamed if other editors ask him to do edits that they are unwilling to do in their own names. Thus, if this is seen as sanctionable conduct, one issue to think about in framing the sanction would be to ensure that Victor is left by himself to make his own decisions that he discusses with unsanctioned editors on his or their talk pages, or on article talk pages. I currently see Victor's conduct on the articles that are within the scope of the recent case as challenging in the best sense of that word: he puts other editors to their proof to ensure that articles are properly sourced. I don't see his conduct as currently violative of any Wikipedia principles or guidelines. On my part, I will probably take extra care to make my communications with other editors about articles in this category appear on the article talk pages (or category or WikiProject talk pages) to avoid any possibility of secret canvassing, which I hear is quite disfavored on Wikipedia. But other editors of all points of view are welcome to visit my talk page if they have something to say to me directly. I think the atmosphere since the decision in the ArbCom case has been constructive and civil and has helped several editors have more time for looking up sources because of less time spent on wikidrama. I look forward to that new atmosphere continuing. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Ferahgo the Assassin wrote on my talk page about questionable content in The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy, asking me to take a look at it. I reviewed the content, and removed it after finding it to be original research unsupported by the claimed sources (one of which seemed to be a personal webpage). At this point, I didn't think there was anything suspicious about Ferahgo's request, because I didn't think he had been involved in R&I disputes and he seemed to have an edit history largely unrelated to R&I, and because The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy is an article I have been generally involved with anyway.

However, Ferahgo's follow-up post on my talk page raised my suspicions, and I would have questioned him about why he does not do the edits himself if this Arbitration enforcement case had not come up. If Ferahgo is indeed a meatpuppet or sockpuppet of Occam or some other topic-banned user, I naturally don't want to abet them in their policy violations.--Victor Chmara (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know that Ferahgo should fall under the topic ban, even though she knows Captain Occam in real life. However, if she wants to participate I think it should be done above board on the articles talk pages, preferably by doing the research and reading herself instead of lobbying other users to intervene on her behalf. aprock (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Feragho was warned twice that, given her real life relationship with Captain Occam, sudden entry into the topic area just after his topic ban was unlikely to go over well. It may also be interesting to note that within 20 edits of starting her account which still has less than 200 edits in the year it's been open, Feragho popped in to defend Captain Occam, has continued to do so throughout this dispute ,  and has a strikingly similar opinion on the dispute.  There's a wide world of Wikipedia out there that wouldn't be a concern. Shell   babelfish 23:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I see from her latest post that Feragho shares another characteristic with Captain Occam: an inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. Roger Davies  talk 10:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Advice to Ferahgo for how to edit these articles without upset. a) Wait until after Captain Occam's article restrictions are up. b) Reflect on the messages that arb comm has given Captain Occam, which were Loud and Clear.  In order to learn, you have to listen when you're being told not to do something.  c) Gain considerably more experience editing elsewhere.  d) Avoid temptation-stay completely away from the articles and their talk pages, don't even read them, during your sabatical. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Occam is indefinitely topic banned, so waiting until his restriction is up might mean never getting to edit them at all. I know that's probably the safest thing to do, but it's hardly fair: I've never done anything sanctionable on these articles. What I'd like advice on is how I can participate in them without offending people.


 * I've seen the message arbcom has given Occam, and I've seen what he's done wrong. I won't make the same mistakes if given the opportunity to participate. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The decision lays out the course of action which would allow that the ban might be lifted. You've already made two of the same mistakes.  You've resorted to talk page recruitment to circumvent fallout from editing there directly, acknowledging as you did so that direct involvement on your part would likely invoke charges of meat puppetry.  Don't canvass, don't use other editors to execute edits for you. Second, you're pushing back rather than learning from advice and warnings when they're given you.  Your editing of these articles has every appearance of meat puppetry, you've been warned not to do it: that's usually all it takes, no polygraph tests or truth serums required. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam was banned for edit warring and false claims of consensus. His finding of fact doesn't mention contacting other users on their talk pages, and I honestly did not know that contacting a single user for their input on an issue would be a problem. Trust me, I've definitely learned from my mistake and I won't be doing that again. I thought that reverting an edit would be regarded as more combative than pointing out that I disagree with them on a user's talk page, and asking them for their opinion, but it's clear that I was wrong.


 * That said, I think it's obvious that I won't be able to convince you of anything here. I already explained why I think that my behavior and my pattern of contributions are not consistent with what constitutes meatpuppetry. If this isn't enough to make a difference to anyone, then it looks like maybe Vecrumba is right: that the only way I can possibly get people to assume good faith about me is to pretend that Occam's topic ban applies to me, despite my having violated nothing.


 * The amount of hostility that's shown to newcomers on these articles - if they have unpopular opinions, anyway - is truly astounding. And not just in regards to myself, either. While I've been watching these articles, I've seen several others being given basically the same treatment, despite having violated as little as I have. If this hostility extends to topic banning me from these articles despite having never edited them, then this is going to show me something about Wikipedia that I find pretty distasteful. I'd like to contribute positively to these articles, but at this point it's a matter of principle for me also. I would like to be treated fairly here. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia which extends tremendous faith in its editors, without even knowing their names, without background checks, without credentials, recommendations or any other of the bona fides demanded in most such spheres. But there's only so much AGF that can be extended without becoming such an overt invitation for abuse that its most civic minded, time invested volunteers are ashamed their involvement helped lend the project "legitimacy".  Don't take it personally.  But they have to draw the line somewhere.  When an editor walks like a duck, squawks like one, swims with the duck, lives and migrates with 'em, edits from the same IPs, vacations with 'em, coordinates on blogs and websites together, and commiserates like one, probably daily, over how unfair and unwelcoming wikipedia is together.....well, wikipedia has to draw a line someplace.  And drawing it just about here doesn't seem so outrageous to me. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin
I've never actually edited these articles before, but I've always been interested in them and in this topic. Up until recently I've been reluctant to get involved because of the way the editing atmosphere has historically been, and I didn't want to get in the middle of mudslinging. However, with the addition of the recent discretionary sanctions on the article, I was hoping that would change. I also thought that now that fewer people are participating in these articles, they needed a new set of eyes on them.

Ever since before the arbcom case closed, whenever I've posted anything on any of these articles I've gotten accusations of being a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet, even though I'm (obviously, in my own view) not. In order to be considered a meatpuppet, I would need to be "A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose." You can see that there is no way that this could be the "sole purpose" I'm editing Wikipedia. My comments on Victor's userpage are the result of this dilemma. On one hand I want to participate in these articles, and I feel like they need more attention now in general. But on the other hand I'm afraid of how I'll be treated if I started editing them. An arbitrator even suggested that I wait a while before getting involved, which made me even more reluctant to start editing the articles, but now it looks like my caution has worked to my disadvantage.

My comments on Victor's userpage are definitely not for the same reason as Occam's have been in the past. Unlike him, I'm not trying to canvass or tag-team. In my case, it's just that I've been afraid to edit these articles because of how it's gone in the past, but I also felt like these issues needed someone's attention. I also wanted Victor's opinion on them, since I know he's a much more experienced editor than I am. Even though these articles have discretionary sanctions now, it looks like administrators aren't paying attention to instances of original synth and POV-pushing. I had asked an admin earlier here what to do to bring this to an admin's attention, but received no response. I don’t know very much about how to get answers to questions like these, and I really wanted some advice about this.

I find it really disheartening that these accusations are being leveled at me before I've even gotten involved in any actual editing. As far as I know, I've never done anything wrong on any of these articles, and I would at least like to be given the chance to participate here neutrally. If it's not appropriate for me to comment on others' userpages in order to point out problematic material to them, then I can stop doing that, and can instead begin making the edits myself as Aprock suggested.

Suppose for a second that I really am not a sock of Occam, and that I'm not a meatpuppet either. That despite an off-Wiki connection to Occam, I have my own ideas, opinions and style of editing that are separate and distinct from his, and that I'd like to contribute to this part of Wikipedia now that I feel like it's finally "safe" for me to edit here. What, then, should I do? How is it fair to prevent me from editing these articles due to something I can't control? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for seemingly being unable to do anything right here. I am genuinely trying, but everything I do is the wrong thing. If someone can suggest a way for me to participate in these articles like any other user without offending anyone, I'd follow it.-Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have a suggestion at the moment, however, any such suggestion requires an assumption of good faith that your opinion and expression thereof is yours and yours alone. Right now it appears that doing anything (other than editing Peas and Carrots) is the wrong thing. You might stick to discussions at articles for a while until editors can form their own opinions of your editorial viewpoint and conduct independent of other factors. (I myself showed up at an inopportune time and was accused of having shown up for reasons other than my interest in the subject matter area.) This is the best I can offer at the moment. We will only put the arbitration behind us and move forward if we stop going back to it. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, though, I've already tried sticking to commenting on talk pages - that's what I was trying to do by commenting on Victor Chmara's page. Evidently that's a problem too, since it's why Muntuwandi raised this concern. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Declaring you guilty a priori I think is a bit premature and a continuation of the R&I drama. See WeijiBaikeBianji's offer below to start. I would venture that WeijiBaikeBianji's talk page would also be a neutral venue. Perhaps Muntuwandi would agree to that? I've got very little spare time at the moment and unfortunately this sort of stuff is taking what little attention I can devote at the moment instead of thinking about improving content. I suspect I'm not alone. The arbitration was supposed to close all this drama so editors could get back to content, not to be a launching point for continuation of the conflict. P ЄTЄRS  J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To some closing comments recently added herein, IMHO going to enforcement right after an arbitration contending A (Occam) = B (Ferahgo) is well and good, but until "B" edits a critical mass of content in the style and substance of "A" and confronts opposing viewpoints in the style of "A" and draws the same conclusions regarding editors of opposing viewpoints as "A" and does all of the above in an adversarial manner, etc., etc., etc., the enforcement request here comprises the escalation. "B" is entitled to contribute until there is more than supposition and a few diffs here and there. It's up to "B" to withstand scrutiny. Advice and offers have been extended on engaging constructively. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by 67.119.3.248
[Note: I wasn't part of the dispute and stayed away from the arb case, but I commented in some of the prior ANI threads that failed to resolve the dispute.]

Ferahgo, being locked out of editing 0.01% of Wikipedia without direct cause, while remaining free to edit in the other 99.99%, is indeed not 100% fair. However, in some reasonable sense of the word, it's 99.99% fair, or anyway better than 90% fair. That's more fairness than anyone can hope for in a heck of a lot of areas of life in general, so it's best to just accept it as part of the cards you've been dealt. Remember that arbcom's job is to do what's best for the project as a whole, even when that involves dealing out tiny doses of unfairness to individual editors. Massive unfairness is bad for the project, but this doesn't anywhere near qualify.

Being intensely desirous to edit in one contentious subject area is itself a sign of over-investment in that subject. It's better to disengage from such areas and stay in areas you can maintain more detachment. You're making nice contributions about dinosaurs and it's obvious from your illustration skills that you know a lot about art. So those are immediately obvious areas where you can help out. The more contentious subjects in WP are generally pretty disreputable anyway, as well as being unpleasant to work in. I gave up on them a long time ago. What good reputation Wikipedia has in the world, comes mostly from subject areas (like art and science and literature) that are comparatively conflict-free on-wiki. You'll help the project a lot more by contributing to its high-quality coverage of reputable and uncontentious topics, than by crawling down to its "slums" and participating in its gang wars.

I, as an unregistered user, am locked out of 1000's of articles that are semi-protected due to vandalism, even though I've never vandalized anything. Some of those articles are on topics I'd quite like to contribute to. What do I do about it? Shrug my shoulders and edit other articles instead. There are plenty, so many that I could never get to them all no matter what. It's no big deal. You can do the same.

Regards, 67.119.3.248 (talk) 02:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "I, as an unregistered user, am locked out of 1000's of articles" This is your choice, so I fail to see how you are "locked" out of anything. What do you do about it? If you were sufficiently motivated, you'd register and not kvetch about it. "I have chosen to remain an unregistered user and to not participate in 1000's of articles" would be the appropriate statement in your case. You will pardon my cynicism (or is it idealism?) but if every contentious topic were abandoned to gang wars as you seem to propose, WP wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Peters, you're on the right track, but take it to the next level: we all choose to edit Wikipedia (if we're here), which means dealing with Wikipedia's million outrages large and small. Trying to battle every single one of them is not a route to being a happy editor.  Anyone who feels entitled to an outrage-free editing experience (as Ferahgo seems) is simply doomed to disappointment.  The winning formula is "don't sweat the small stuff".  You missed my point about being locked out of semi-protected articles, which is that they are part of the small stuff.  That lockout issue is so low in my hierarchy of wiki-annoyances that I don't even remember it most of the time. Regarding contentious articles, it's really true IMO that 1) the conflict in them ruins their credibility so much that they're turned into crap not worth reading, 2) most of the byzantine content policies and bureaucratic and antagonistic culture in Wikipedia grew out of disputes in those articles, but then they pollute the whole encyclopedia, so the battles in the conflicted articles make the unconflicted ones worse, and 3) editing effectively in conflicted areas takes experience that Ferahgo does not yet have.  So I don't think having Ferahgo active in R&I topics is likely to help those articles very much at the present time and I don't think the articles help the project that much.  I also urged Mathsci to quit the R&I topic before the arb case for about the same reasons, since we need him much more in other areas. I do think the AE admins (despite what Stifle says) are entitled to make a factfinding about the original request regarding possible proxy editing.  I don't have a strong view of what they should decide.  Your A=B analysis seems reasonable to me.  WeijiBaikeBianji's approach may also be an ok starting point, though if Ferahgo comes under the topic ban then WeijiBaikeBianji's proxying has to stop.  Or Muntuwandi could open a clarification request.  That would be more legitimate than Captain Occam's boundary probing that led to Aprock's clarification request.   If Ferahgo is topic banned from R&I because of her association with Captain Occam, that's collateral damage from Captain Occam's sanction, just like if I get caught in a range block because some other user of my ISP is vandalizing and IP hopping, or even if I try to enroll or use an account from school but my school's IP is hard blocked.  None of these are 100% fair, but the standard for deciding is supposed to be "which way is the project better off".  67.122.209.135 (talk) (New address due to ISP instability that I'm trying to get fixed) 04:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know this is kind of tangential, but I’d like to know what you mean by “Captain Occam's boundary probing that led to Aprock's clarification request”. What led to Aprock’s clarification request was my stating on the talk page for the Race (classification of humans) article that after my topic ban happened, I intended to stop participating in this article even though I considered this a voluntary decision on my part.  Even though I did not intend to continue participating in these articles whether they were covered by my topic ban or not, Snowded, Slrubenstein and WeijiBaikeBianji all considered it unacceptable for me to consider this a voluntary decision, and set out to prove that I had no choice in the matter.  this was the comment from me that initiated the argument over this.


 * This might seem like something that doesn’t matter, but based on the number of people who have been claiming that I was “testing the limits of my ban” or “determined to continue editing race-related articles”, I can already tell that there’s a good chance of this being a rumor about me that will endure for quite a while. It may even be a rumor that will work to my disadvantage in a few months when I have the option of appealing my topic ban, so it’s really something that I think should be set to rest, if possible.  Anyone who thinks this is the case needs to read the discussion on the talk page for the race article that led to Aprock’s clarification request, and in particular my comments there.  Did I ever state there that I wanted to continue editing this article after my topic ban? --Captain Occam (talk) 07:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going by the proposed decision talk page from the arb case. I did read that page. 67.122.209.135 (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The proposed decision talk page is one of the best examples of what I’m talking about. On that page, Snowded and WeijiBaikeBianji claimed that I was displaying the “same agenda” on the race article, and linked to the comment from me that I linked to here, in which I announced my lack of intention to continue editing this article.  It looks like a lot of people have just taken their word about what my intentions were, without bothering to check whether the diff they were providing actually supported what they were saying.  Did you look at the comment from me that they were linking to, and see that what I said in it was the opposite of what they were claiming about me? --Captain Occam (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aprock's clarification request, which I seconded, was simply to have clarity on what is in and out of scope of the "Race and intelligence" topic ban (that is, articles, nothing to do with editors) so that recriminations and accusations and unfortunate downward-spiraling perceptions of intent could all be avoided. It had nothing to do with allowing Occam to continue to edit anything. The ban is the ban, all that was requested was clarity to avoid needless sturm und drang.
 * @Occam: Once the WP:DOGS are let loose there is nothing you can do to put the proverbial toothpaste back into the tube. All you can do is confront misrepresentation on a case by case basis. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Amalthea
Per WP:SHARE: "Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives." I accept that Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam were created by two distinct persons. However, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Captain Occam, they are closely related, and Ferahgo is thus essentially topic-banned from "race and intelligence related articles, broadly construed" along with Captain Occam. I do not see need for any action at this point beyond making this clear. Amalthea 10:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the "editing with the same objectives" that won't apply in my own case. I'm aware that I expressed some content opinions that were similar to Occam's before his topic ban; there was nothing wrong with doing so at that point. When we were both allowed to participate, we only needed to be careful to not violate 3RR and other stuff that would be a violation if done by a single user. But because of Occam's ban, I intend for my future participation in this article to be very different from his. I don't even intend to make edits that would make it clear what my viewpoint is if it weren't already public knowledge.


 * What I think would be a fair decision from this thread is for an admin to tell me that I'm allowed to participate in these articles, but that I need be absolutely independent, neutral, and non-contentious. If someone wants to scrutinize my edits to make sure I'm behaving, that would be fine. But before having ever edited them all, I think I deserve some amount of rope here. You'll never know if I can edit these articles differently from Occam without being given a chance. If I screw up, then it would be extremely easy to topic ban me after the fact, and I doubt I'd even raise an objection. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would certainly consider it only friendly and helpful, a contribution to Wikipedia, if you made suggestions in my user space about sources. If you know of sources that other Wikipedians don't know about, share the knowledge. If you have thoughts about which sources are most valuable, please let everyone know.  Wikipedia is all about  verifiability through  reliable sources, and my biggest concern as I surf around Wikipedia is how many more and better sources most articles need. Anyone who is well familiar with an academic library, especially an academic library with  medically reliable sources, can help the project greatly by telling other editors about those sources. I'll do the work of verifying the bibliographic data for each source and typing up those data in citation tag format. You and other users can help by thinking out loud on the  suggestions page of the bibliography about how the sources differ and what signs of reliability each source has. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vecrumba
Both WeijiBaikeBianji and I have made suggestions to Ferahgo regarding ways to constructively participate which would demonstrate and build good faith. (Personally, some of my best and brightest and closest friends are ones with whom I disagree vehemently on certain topics.) It would be beneficial to put away the unofficial memes of guilty until proven innocent, meatpuppet for agreeing with another editor (regardless of reputable sources), etc. As there are ArbCom eyes on conduct, I would strongly suggest all participants at R&I articles "widely construed" —if they are really interested in taking conflict and drama out of the system—to (a) desist from reporting other participants for enforcement actions and (b) desist from lobbying admins et al. on personal talk pages to kvetch about other participants. Articles have talk pages for a reason, let's keep discussions where they belong, and on the topic at hand instead of speculation which can only be inflammatory. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 14:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ, if an editor violates a policy, it is appropriate and necessary to report them. Otherwise problems will remain hidden from the wider community. We know which editors lobby admins the most (this includes lobbying Jimbo Wales). The onus is on editors to avoid conduct that is likely to be reported. Wikipedia is not the mafia or a street gang that does not report violations made by others. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Captain Occam

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


 * There does not appear to me to be anything that could be done to resolve this matter that is intra vires this noticeboard. We can't give declaratory relief; either Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin are meatpuppets or they are not, but that is a finding of fact which we will not make. But if they are, then there is a topic-ban violation which any admin can sanction without further ado, and if they are not, then the matter should be referred back to ArbCom by way of a request for amendment. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't do legalese as Stifle can, but I basically agree. This page is to enforce decisions made by ArbCom, and ArbCom has no findings about User: Ferahgo the Assassin that I can see. Whether she and Captain Occam are meatpuppets is not a determination that can or should be made here.  However, Ferahgo has been given lots of good advice here, and my personal opinion is also that considering the information available about the accounts and their/your relationship, it would be best to avoid the subject area altogether while Captain Occam is topic-banned. While I am sympathetic to the notion that the individuals in a relationship remain individuals, in this case I think there is reasonable evidence for concern about how independent the edits and opinions actually are.  If Ferahgo has information to contribute unconnected to Captain Occam, she could cautiously take up User: WeijiBaikeBianji's offer and see if that can lead to a reputation for NPOV and collaborative editing that others would welcome in other areas of article development. If not, I suspect an Arbcom amendment would be the result.  --Slp1 (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Request concerning Nishidani

 * User requesting enforcement : Broccoli (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated :

Not applicable.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1)  Commenting on I/P related topic
 * 2)  Commenting on I/P related topic
 * 3)  Commenting on I/P related topic
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : block


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint : Nishidani violated his topic ban, and it is not first time already. Please enforse the sunctions.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : diff link

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

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

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

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

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


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

Comments by others about the request concerning Nishidani

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


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


 * The timestamp of the second diff seems to indicate this edit is the one being referred to. The relevant sanction says, and I quote directly, "He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." If the sanction was intended to ensure that the individual refrain from even discussing matters at ANI, which all three links are to, then perhaps enforcement is justified. Having said that, I am not myself convinced that it is necessarily a good idea to sanction someone for discussing a community ban, which seems to be what all three posts related to. I believe it would send a very bad message to the community. John Carter (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if the sanction did preclude Nishidani from commenting on ANI community ban Discussions (and I don't believe it does), his edits referred to above would not be covered. They have absolutely nothing to do with Israel or Palestine, and everything to do with defending a Jewish editor from racially-motivated hostility. RolandR (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, user:Mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for this edit. The edit was made on AE, and had absolutely nothing to do with I/P conflict area. Not to block user:Nishidani  for a much worse topic ban violation would be unjustifiable. Broccoli (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that Mbz1 was commenting about an anti-Israel image? How do Nishidani's comments relate to Israel or Palestine? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is this even being debated? "...or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles." Since the ANI revolves around Jewish Internet Defense Force it is of course related to the I-P area. He should not be commenting at all and just stay away. He even knows it and said: I think it worth while risking an extension of my I/P permaban to say this. He said a good thing about a guy. That is commendable but he knew what he was asking for. When people start skirting their bans (no matter how trivial it might seem) it causes frustration and therefore disruption. This is similar to restricted editors reverting vandalism. The principle is nice but they just need to stop. No extreme restriction is needed but something is certainly justified.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow-up:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive53 He was in breach then but the reporting was stale. This is at least the second time (are there any others?). Something needs to be done to ensure that there is an understanding that editing within the topic area is not acceptable. The enforcement process is meaningless ff he can continue to knowingly thumb his nose at it. There doesn't need to be blood. Just a clear message that will hopefully result in it not happening again. If he has no concerns at extending his permaban (that was pretty funny) then maybe other actions are necessary.Cptnono (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already expressed my gratitude to Nishidani for his posts in defence of my actions. For those baying for blood, I should like to point out that some time has passed and that any blocks should be deemed necessary to protect Wikpedia not simply punitive. Oh and can someone do something about User:ברוקולי's use of the signature "Broccoli". There already is a user:Broccoli and it should not appear that this user has anything to do with User:ברוקולי's actions.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At the beginning of this year, I discussed the way the way the West Bank - Judea and Samaria sanctions worked with an editor who was a member of the ArbCom at the time they were imposed. My understanding is that restricted editors may edit pages which touch peripherally on the Arab-Israeli conflict so long as they don't edit or add parts which specifically refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict to those pages and so long as their contributions aren't disruptive. Otherwise, as one of the Wikipedia editors mentioned on the JIDF's hit list, I think that it is entirely proper that Nishidani participated in a case concerned with whether the leader of the organisation should be allowed to participate on the Wikipedia project.      ←   ZScarpia  00:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nishidani's comments appear to be technically in breach to me (although I allow room for the fact that some see them as not being in breach). I think, though, that it would be detrimental to the workings of Wikipedia to censure non-disruptive one-off contributions to ANI discussions. --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nishidani was defending Peter Cohen, who was under a lot of stress trying to deal with a bad situation, and it wouldn't make sense to have yet another Wikipedian fall victim to that situation. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mildly curious to hear how Broccoli thinks blocking Nishidani would help Wikipedia.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that adding another concuring opinion is going to be overly helpful here, but I agree. This seems baseless.  Are there any counter measures out there for frivolous submission to AE? NickCT (talk) 15:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that AE should be enforced fairly or should not be enforced at all.
 * RolandR and others, please do not make a victim out of user:Peter cohen  and a hero out of  user: Nishidani
 * Peter cohen was warned by Jimbo for the first time, and  for the second time. Nishidani's
 * topic ban violation was addressed directly to User:Jimbo Wales
 * "Mr Wales...". Are you saying that User:Jimbo Wales was
 * the one who made "racially-motivated abuse" towards user:Peter cohen?--Broccoli (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC
 * Are you going to stop using someone else's user name as your sig?--Peter cohen (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will treat that question with the respect that it deserves. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


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

Regarding whether Nishidani's comments were a violation, they were pretty much on the borderline. In situations such as this, some discretion is allowable, and given that Nishidani wasn't being disruptive, I don't think a block would achieve anything. PhilKnight (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, re your prior edit, I think it would do a world of good all round. A bock is just what the doctor calls for in these situations :)Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nishi's comments were in a thread unrelated to the topic area. Cptnono says it was about the article on the "JIDF", a "Jewish internet defense" group that oddly attacks Jews on the internet. The thread was not about the article on the JIDF and anybody who read the thread would not say that it was. But Nishi needs a forceful reminder that this place is not good enough for him. A block for editing in an area that he is not restricted from would give such a reminder.  nableezy  - 01:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a borderline case, but important for WP credibility and fairness for 'boderline' cases to be handled with less tolearnce it seems. Mbz1 was blocked on much less than this as shown above. This would seem like a clear double-standard if nothing is done here. --Shuki (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


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

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


 * I see scintillating scotoma when I have an acephalgic migraine. The patterns seem very clear but they aren't really there. The block log says 12:52, 6 June 2010 Sandstein (talk | contribs) blocked Mbz1 (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours ‎ (Arbitration enforcement: Third violation of Israeli/Arab conflict topic ban, at and User talk:Breein1007).  Nishidani's block log looks like this so you seeing patterns that aren't there based on invalid assumptions about cause and effect.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 07:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I.e. read properly, that block log refers to, over my entire history, two blocks in 2007, when I began to edit, for violating 3RR, the first because I didn't understand the way reverts were counted, the second because two people tagteaming, and later banned, kept eliding 3 impeccably reliable sources on one page. The rest were blocks due to administrative error, and overturned almost immediately by community requests to administrators. This was, in the good old days, enough evidence to get one permabanned. So be it, but attempts to compare my exiguous record for violations over some 17,000 edits with habitual evaders of blocks, by people who have a long record for disruption, are offensive, particularly if registered by low performers or IP blowins.Nishidani (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec withe below)
 * The complaint looks like pure harassment to me. The terms of the restriction on Nishidani are clear and Nishidani did not violate them. He did not edit an article or comment on a talk page attached to the article and he did not participate in "a discussion substantially concerned with such articles". It seems to me that "Broccoli" wants to broaden the 15 month old editing restriction, but the time is long past for that. In fact, it's probably time to lift the indefinite restriction on N's editing. N is not a vandal who is likely to repeat his vandalism - he simply wants to introduce a different view into IP articles -- one that is supported by RSs, even though it is not the majority view. Allowing these minority views (if supported by RSs of course) is completely consistent with WP policy and improves article quality. Banning contributors indefinitely and seeking to broaden the bans after the fact, ultimately degrades Wikipedia content and drives away open minded contributors. KeptSouth (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry KS, my remarks were phrased in a way that they lent themselves to an interpretation suggesting I 'want' to do something with I/P articles. I was referring to the history of my work in that area, so the proper thing would be to paraphrase that I 'wanted' (to see to it that the 2 active Palestinian editors, as opposed to the several hundred Israeli/Jewish editors in that area, had some assistance from the outside to ensure WP:NPOV was respected). I saw it as an egregious example of systemic bias, for which there was no technical remedy. Therefore no plea to be allowed back, since I have no vocation for martyrdom. The point was, that these episodes of relentless indictment, stalking and harassment, not for any serious disruption (like sockpuppetry etc), but simply to drive people out of wikipedia by a cavilling instrumental focus on niceties of law, that make rather reasonable editors look bad when admins look at the sheer number of denunciations registered on logs, ought eventually to be addressed. They won't be of course. I suppose now that this off-the-cuff reflection can be used against me. I don't care, at this point.Nishidani (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether you want to contribute to IP articles again, you should be free to do so. My point is that this request for "enforcement" is baseless, and banning your from Wikipedia would be way over the top.KeptSouth (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Without wishing to add to the drama, it seems a little cowardly to hide away from this, now I've spotted it. I'm I-P topic banned too, and also commented at ANI, and on Peter's talk page, opposing the attempt by a community-banned user, multiple sockpuppeteer and owner of a website with militaristic stylings that tries to name, out and intimidate WP editors - Jewish and others - to smooth his way to editing here. That individual is also on record as making grossly Islamophobic statements, through that website and on his Twitter account (after his attempt was rebuffed, he them forged an anti-semitic rant that was purported to be from the blocking admin, and posted it on the web. He is now rampaging across WP using multiple IDs, saying “that’s what we wanted”). I can't for the life of me see where there's a breach of any arbitration ruling in raising a voice against that prospect, and in offering some brief support to an editor who felt threatened by that person. None of Nishidani's comments - or mine - were about the I-P conflict, or on or even about pages or topics related to it. This was not a "community discussion substantially concerned with such articles", to quote the restriction directly. Arguably, this one is though. Whoops. Anyway, even if a weakly plausible connection can just about be made through five degrees of separation, as also noted, what benefit would there be to whatever action it is that is actually being requested?  N-HH   talk / edits  15:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ps: actually, I'm not sure it's fair to Nishidani to say he represented minority views on I-P issues. And, specifically on the topic ban, like me, he got hit for "edit warring" for requesting the standard international terminology of "West Bank" in WP articles on the conflict, and for making a total of about, oh five reverts over several months on that point. Although like him, I am glad to be free from the madhouse.  N-HH   talk / edits  15:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Worse than that, 8, not five reverts, in two months.Nishidani (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


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


 * By the way, I support N's right to edit whatever he wants, including the Palestine Israel articles. The small number of reverts over one year ago do not justify an indefinite topic ban. It is a disproportionate punishment for what was largely a misunderstanding on his part. This enforcement action seems to be requesting a total ban because N discussed something about a Jew on a page that was not off limits to him. It is absurd. If such rules were to be applied universally on WP, we would all be banned indefinitely. This case should be closed, and the indef topic ban on N should be lifted as part of the review of this case.KeptSouth (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This case has nothing to do with challenging the Arbcom decision, or some putative right, no one else has, uniquely for me, to enjoy a state of exception to an Arbcom deliberation. That is history as is much of my work. It is simply a technical question of whether I infringed the articles of that sanction. I don't believe I did. mI believe the Arbcom decision was within the rights of the arbitrators, though I do not agree with it. But as Socrates taught the Western world in the Crito, if you live within a democratic system, you must respect its laws, and not whinge. He could have escaped, but he preferred to dutifully take his poison. Minor lights do well to bear that in mind. I appreciate your position, of course, but this is no place to challenge a verdict, however incomprehensible, that affected many people, not only me.Nishidani (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I started to post this this morning but I thought surely I was misunderstanding something about this request, so I refrained until reading the comment from KeptSouth. As an outside observer, the logic of this request escapes me.
 * 1. Nishidani "is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict (West Bank - Judea and Samaria), commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles."
 * 2. The ANI discussion was about the problem of multiple sockpuppets edit-warring at the Jewish Internet Defense Force article.
 * 3. The particular discussion in which Nishidani participated was about whether to community-ban Einsteindonut.
 * Would someone please draw the line from "any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles ((West Bank - Judea and Samaria)" and a discussion about sockpuppets at Jewish Internet Defense Force? It seems like an awfully liberal interpretation to me. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No Tom. I am permabanned for the I/P area, if you read the appropriate sections down the page at Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. I may touch nothing in the I/P area, and, as Malik reminds me, be very careful not to stray into grey zones.Nishidani (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw well, WTF then. There's a lot I don't understand about Wikipedia policy, including how a "permaban" is not permanent, apparently. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So do you really really understand this time? This is at least twice now. Admins should have some balls and show you a block to at least gie the impression that there is some integrity left. But if you pinky swear on it they might let you walk again. Seriousley, just email other users like everyone else probably does instead of commenting yourself next time. This AE is annoying but you editing in the topic area is even worse since you are banned.Cptnono (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can explain, Cptnono, since Broccoli seems unwilling or unable to respond. How do Nishidani's comments relate to Israel or Palestine? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already explained. The article Jewish Internet Defense Force was part of the discussion at ANI even though it delved into off article discussion as well. The article touches on the conflict even if it isn't tagged as such on the talk page. But since we are stretching so hard, it could also be argued that he shouldn't be discussing anywhere that could even be broadly construed as related. There is no doubt that the I-P conflict was part of that discussion. And he even admitted to it in his edit when he made the remark that basically said screw you to his sanction. Again: "I think it worth while risking an extension of my I/P permaban to say this." He knew making a comment was at the very best questionable if not completely unnecessary and enforceable. He is not welcome in the topic area and now we have yet another long AE since he snubbed the rules. If he would have stayed away this wouldn't have happened. So if he doesn't get it it needs to be made clear. If he does get it then he needs to show it by not coming back. If this was the first time it would not be a big deal. It is the second. Enough is enough. Does AE matter or not? If not, I will certainly have a good time telling people what I think.Cptnono (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An admin once told me that AE frowns upon wikilawyering. Any defense to this request is splitting so many hairs that I don;t see how it can be called anything less. So yes or no admins? Cptnono (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you can of course wikilawyer your way out of something and around a ban, but random editors with an agenda can also wikilawyer your contributions into a banned area, and clog up notice boards with complaints about it. Anyone with an open mind can see what's disruptive, time-wasting and of no constructive purpose. I'm also utterly baffled by Wgfinley's contribution to the "Result" section.  N-HH   talk / edits  07:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Cptnono, with reference to the JIDF article, you say: "The article touches on the conflict". Also: "It could also be argued that he shouldn't be discussing anywhere that could even be broadly construed as related." Nishidani's restriction means that he cannot write about the I-P conflict anywhere . However, so long as he doesn't write about the conflict, he is not banned from participating when the subject is broader (that is, merely touches) than the I-P conflict. If you doubt that, contact one of the arbitrators who imposed the restriction.      ←   ZScarpia  08:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wgfinley Could you do me the courtesy of explaining what is 'damning' about that diff? Nishidani (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You wrote the word "Israeli". Isn't that damning enough? RolandR (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No I didn't, guv.:) Not at least in the 'first diff' Wgfinley defines as 'damning' evidence of my violating the I/P ban.Nishidani (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh but you did, in passing, when you explained what SHIT stood for. That is in the first diff cited against you, and clear evidence of criminal intent. I missed it first time round as well.  N-HH   talk / edits  11:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! And there I was thinking I was a close reader. All I saw was a fine editor's name listed in or as 'SHIT'. No excuses then. I did violate the ban, the JIDF is vindicated, all the boys who worked on this can thank Broccolo for defending Wikipedia against a violent 'disruptive' agitator, and as I join, I suppose, Peter Cohen and, I presume, presently, perhaps the best I/P editor we have, Nableezy, in the afterwikilife, watch on as the insulted and injured, to use Dostoievsky's term, are welcomed with open arms, even if they have long records for sockpuppetry, disruption, POV editing, and whatever. Just goes to show. When you see someone who has publicly painted you out to be an antisemitic ranter full of anti-Israeli bias (no diff has ever been adduced to show the slightest evidence for either of these absurd charges), and smeared a Jew as not being Jewish, you have no right of redress on wikipedia, not even a cautious quip, nor any right to remonstrate on behalf of a good man's personal dignity, especially after the boss steps in to chide the latter for his exasperation. Okay, die Lage ist verzweifelt, aber nicht ernst, as they use to say in the coffee shops of Vienna in Karl Kraus 's day, let the Kahanist tribalbutients take up their barcaloungers and tune into wiki, to edit away on behalf of its high aims. If you wish to achieve 'closure', Finley then hang on a tic while I finish one or two edits I have been asked help out with. Shouldn't take more than a day or two, and they have nothing to do with the provocative defence of personal dignity that seems to be my problem with administration here.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So that settles it then. Nishidani understands it and has even added some punch to his comments. So will there be repercussions or can he violate his ban yet again? "Broccolo" doesn't need anyone's thanks and I am sure Nableezy appreciates Nishidani's support.Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment in question also includes a suggestion, at the very end, that the comment might risk an extension of the I-P ban. Nishidani does tend to be - dare I say it, and it's no bad thing - unduly cautious on this point. Or, one might say, prescient, given the phrasing used is (my emphasis) "risking an extension", and given that someone opened this complaint. I also remain confused by what "he brought it him himself with the Jewish references" means, or what that might have to do with I-P bans; or why a link to one of Nishidani's comments is referred to as "one of my own clear comment". Or in what way it constitutes a "result". But that's just nitpicking. As is the observation, for the sake of correctness, that in fact the ban covers the Arab-Israeli conflict, not just the Palestinian-Israeli area. ArbCom quietly changed that without telling or asking anyone, after the original decision had been handed down. Not that it makes a difference to the issue here.  N-HH   talk / edits  10:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Comment I was blocked 3 times for so called ban violation. First time I was blocked for this revert in Rothschild family article that has nothing to do with I/P conflict, as my revert did not. Second time I was blocked for this comment made on AE that had nothing to do with any article at all. The third time I was blocked for this comment at sandstein's talk page. Once again the comment had nothing to do with the article. No, I do not think that wikipedia will be better off without Nishidani, and I enjoy his knowledge of literature, but he did violate his topic ban at least 3 times I know of, and a day or two of block will help him to make a better judgment next time. BTW User:N-HH also violated his topic ban by making comment at that request. I provided my own history for learning purposes only. I see here few new administrators. I believe it will make them good to see what could be considered a topic ban violation.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes there needs to be a consideration of what benefit a punitive block brings. Looking at the pro-Israel editors, there are some who never get into trouble with admins. Then there are the likes of yourself, JayJG, Shuki etc. who do get into trouble at times through being outspoken or insistent or whatever but who also contribute stuff including featured content. Then there are the likes of David Appletree who operate sock-puppet armies, run mailing lists etc. in which they encourage meatpuppets to join in their disruption, have a website where they launch attacks on lots of Wikipedians, issue tweets indicating that they are considering coming over to London (where I happen to live) and do something against the rules (tweets listed on my talk page) etc. issue other tweets implying that they are planning a campaign to infiltrate Wikipedia and who have never made any effort to contribute anything to the project. If Nishidani had interfered in the occasional dispute I might have with you or Shuki, then I think sanctions would be appropriate. That is because you two are bona fide Wikipedians who may not be perfect but who contribute with the intention of improving the encyclopedia even when you are advancing political staff I disagree with. Appletree has never contributed in good faith and his presence on Wikipedia is totally negative. He exploits all policies simply to try and keep the article on his organisation as distorted as possible in his favour. He bombards OTRS, Jimbo and Arbcom with petty complaints in the hope of causing trouble for his critics. (Knowing him, he'll probably complain about this post.) And some of the people who receive his complaints leap into judgment without exploring the history. As a result we have lost User:Scott MacDonald at least for the time being, I've reduced my activity, (including delaying working with someone to draw up the history of an editor whose activity has looked suspiciously anti-Semitic,) another editor has put up a notice on their talk page stating that they are currently disillusioned with Wikipedia. Editors under this sort of attack from someone acting in such bad faith need to be shown support or the project suffers. Even though I disagree with you on a lot of issues I've also shown you support when you were being wikistalked and have tried to chase up SPIs that were being slow. (I'm glad to see that you've felt up to returning BTW.) I feel that Nishidani's actions were intended to show me support when I was being subject to the repercussions of what he saw as similarly malicious conduct. And therefore I don't think his actions should be treated as an ordinary violation of an editing restriction.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This request has absolutely nothing to do with David Appletree. This request has nothing to do with me. I'm hardly involved in editing I/P conflict articles, and I have never been involved with those very much. User:Scott MacDonald is a very fine man, and I told him so in a message I left on his talk page today, and this request has nothing to do with him either.I am sorry you cut back your contributions, but this request has nothing to do with you either. This request is about Nishidani, who violated his topic ban for the third time I know of. I was blocked, when I asked to remove hate propaganda, Nazi motive image from a user page. I was blocked for 72 hours for that! Did I do something wrong? Well Sandstein believed I violated my topic ban, and I accepted the punishment, and I would have done the same thing over and over again, even knowing for sure I am going to get blocked. Why? Because the only thing that matters to me is knowing that I have done the right thing. The same with Nishidani. He believes he has done the right thing, yet by doing so he violated his topic ban for the third time. Period. BTW his first and second topic ban violation were not nearly as "noble" as some claiming his third one was. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I admire all those who have detailed blueprints or memories of my behaviour. I can't even research adequately to find out diffs for things I otherwise remember. This whole episode is one of making a mountain out of a molehill. If I gave the impression I thought I was doing something 'noble' instead of just being decent, when a good productive editor was hauled over the coals by an authoritative voice in here, well that's unfortunate. You're making out I am somehow on a par with those numerous sockpuppets, persistent disturbers of the peace, militant POV warriors and the myrmidons of the general 'let's give'em hell' hugger-mugger. I acted in Peter's interest, and in wikipedia's general interest, in my view, in those three short edits, one a simple wry quip about DA not being DA but a Shabbos goy. Where's your sense of humour? This place, unless it is not careful, will straitlace itself into stasis step by step, unless it makes a clear operative distinction between editors who are consistently and disruptively POV-warring, and editors who drop a quip, or make a rare point concerned with the functionality and integrity of the encyclopedia.  I appreciate you haven't voted either way, but merely commented. We have only interacted once, on Nableezy's page. I watch that page, which suffers from vexatious, systematic and repeated messages that, overtly or between the lines, are provocations intended to stir a reaction that might get the page's namesake hauled before administration. I don't count you among those who do this there. But when I saw this, I   'mirrored' it immediately. The message was, don't provoke other editors with offensive caricatures, or you will get as good as you give, since anyone can play that game. A comic nudge. It was a topic-ban violation, read strictly, I suppose. I don't think this is being 'disruptive'. I think any mature adult should understand, if they are seriously committed to this project, that one can game, tie-up in endless litigation other editors' time if they get fixated on the letter of the law, and not its spirit. The protocols of wiki are to facilitate the building of NPOV content, ensure on-article disruption is minimalized. They are not there to be jerryrigged for combative outing of 'adversaries'. I haven't, I repeat, ever taken anyone to arbitration in 4 years. I have consistently maintained a dialogue on talk pages with people who, from the word 'go' I was 95% certain, from stylistic considerations, were sockpuppets (taken seriously for several months by administrators, such as Tundrabuggy, NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey. I dislike, finally, this latest repetition of a pattern I discerned long ago, reoccurring in this case. An editor far out of left-field whom one has never heard of, suddenly appears with a well-formatted denunciation complaining of some putative rule infraction of the protocols governing the I/P area, and then disappears, leaving it to the usual line up to argue the point. It's obvious what is going on behind the scenes, but nowhere near good form. Not punishable, but that style of 'denunciation' should be treated very warily. People who do that are not acting in the interests of the encyclopedia. Nishidani (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Too many words that do not matter, too many abuse of WP:NOTTHEM, a few conspiracy theories especially for one, who was not going to comment here at all. I will not respond everything, just about memories. Somebody, who commented here linked to this case. So it has nothing to do with my memory, I had no idea about that AE. I simply read the current AE.--Mbz1 (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with conspiracy theories. While thinking over my reply to EdJohnson, a train of thought led me to check Mr Wales' wiki profile, and I noted he was an Objectivist. This in turn made me think of a structural problem in wiki evidence in arbitration, which emerges if you are familiar with the brilliant Michael Polanyi's classics Personal Knowledge and The Tacit Dimension. That is why I'm taking a long time to reply to a simple request. I keep wandering through larger issues, the meta-context, . . . Perhaps I should just retire, sanction or not, and simply publish an essay on it.
 * Anyhow. Come now, there is no need for exasperation. As a gesture of good will, I see on your page you are an admirer of Vladimir Vysotsky. Here’s a peace offering. I think the lines in his Так дымно
 * Минутный порыв говорить - пропал, -
 * И лучше мне молча допить бокал...


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


 * Если только можно, Aвва Oтче,
 * Чашу эту мимо пронеси.
 * Take it as a 'piece' offering, since you appear to think I was behaving as execrably as Evelyn Waugh with that wartime ration of bananas.Nishidani (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

The first diff appears to be damning to me. The Arb decision states he's not allowed to even comment on community pages about such topics. On its face it's on topic as he brought it himself with the Jewish references. When looking into this I found one of my own, clear comment on another user's talk page about Jewish Defense Force. --WGFinley (talk) 07:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Further to my comment in the above section, I still don't consider a block necessary in this instance. PhilKnight (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Under normal circumstances I would agree with you Phil but his ban is on a specific arb case that states (emphasis mine):


 * 7) is placed under an editing restriction indefinitely.  He is prohibited from editing any article in the area of conflict, commenting on any talk page attached to such an article, or participating in any community discussion substantially concerned with such articles.


 * "Such articles" is defined earlier on as P-I conflict articles. Pretty clear to me he is not to be involved in P-I conflict articles or discussion of such articles.  The first diff seems to clearly violate that.  Or is your interpretation that's not "community discussion"?  Seems to me it is given all the discussion.  I think he's violated his ban, at best it's WP:GAME. --WGFinley (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Nishidani's comments were borderline, and given that he wasn't being disruptive, I don't think a block would achieve anything. PhilKnight (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will agree. --WGFinley (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

174.112.83.21
Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning 174.112.83.21

 * User requesting enforcement : Dailycare (talk) 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy that this user violated : ARBPIA


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) diff removal of sourced content, without explanation
 * 2) diff Removal of sourced content after discontinuing contributing on the talkpage
 * 3) diff Again
 * 4) diff Explicit refusal to co-operate and also refusal to provide sources he/she has invoked e.g. here and here.
 * 5) diff On another talkpage, IP is again withholding what his/her "objections" are and a user is asking for them
 * 6) diff Another one
 * 7) diff IP perhaps responds to the two preceding ones
 * Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required):
 * 1) diff Warning by
 * 2) diff Warning by
 * Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction) : Topic ban/block (what's appropriate for an IP?)


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

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


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : diff

Comments by Supreme Deliciousness
I believe that 174.112.83.21 is in fact user User:Breein1007 and that he has decided to edit as an IP because of all the warnings, blocks etc he got with his main account so he is now editing with an IP so he can behave in whatever way he wants, edit warring and incivility.

Comments such as this:

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

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

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

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

Breein has made posts in hebrew: IP also makes posts in hebrew:

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

Breein was notified of Arbcom in 18 november 2009

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

The fact that he is now continuing the same edit warring and uncivil behavior as an IP instead of his main account is something that should be stopped. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked User:174.112.83.21's edit history against 500 of User:Breein1007's past edits.
 * I didnt' find many matches. Both accounts worked on Jerusalem, MV Mariam, Rawabi, User talk:Ynhockey,Muhammad al-Durrah incident.
 * There are behaviorial similarities in edit summaries. Breein liked using the word "stop" in his edit summaries (e.g. "stop censoring things plz","therefore stop harassing me","please stop deleting sourced info"). 174.112.83.21 appears to do the same (e.g. "what part of stop reverting egypt did you not understand","kindly stop violating wikipedia policies immediately", "it is unfactual. stop putting lies".)
 * I think there is moderate circumstantial evidence suggesting these users could be the same, but I'm not convinced. NickCT (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I also have personal information that links Breein to this IP that I havent revealed here, that information together with the behavior is clear that its him. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there seem to be two issues here: whether the IP is Breein and then the behaviour of the IP itself. This request concerns the behaviour issue, so unless SPI investigation pre-empts arb enforcement (don't know if this is the case) then the behaviour side should be actionable on this forum, regardless of whether Bree and IP are the same person. --Dailycare (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Result concerning 174.112.83.21

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

I believe this is the wrong venue, this should go to WP:SPI. Unless someone objects I will close and ask it be filed there. --WGFinley (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No because its not a clear case for a SPI because he has abandoned his main account. Considering all the things he did with that account, if he had continued his edit warring and uncivil behavior from it, he most likely would be banned from Arab-Israeli articles, so it look like he is trying to continue the same disruptive behaviour but without the history of the Breein account to avoid being sanctioned. This is a case for Enforcement. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest filing on WP:SPI, but keeping this thread open for now. PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I filed a SPI here: Sockpuppet_investigations/Breein1007. --Dailycare (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've given the IP a warning, otherwise considering neither the IP or the suspected main account have made any substantial edits in the last week, I think we can close this report without further action. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by User:JRHammond
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – JRHammond (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Ban from editing and participating on the Talk page of the Six Day War article imposed by User:Wgfinley. See my User page:


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : 

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


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

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

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


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

To which I responded:


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

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

(3) There is no Wikipedia guideline that I am aware of that limits the amount of participation an editor may make on the talk page. Are we seriously supposed to consider that, as User:Wgfinley suggests, that extensive contributions to the Talk page and laborious efforts to improve the article ("100 edits in just a couple days", which is hyperbole, but, yes, I've been highly active) constitute a reason for an indefinite ban? User:Wgfinley continues with his stated pretexts:


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

(4) Again, I did not abuse the "editprotected" template, as outlined above. I used it precisely as the admin told me it should be used. I also absolutely did not in any way say or suggest that its "proper usage of it is 'unreasonable'". User:Wgfinley is being totally disingenuous. It was improper usage of the template I said was "unreasonable", which was very clear from my statement. The context: I pointed out a problem with the article and offered what I maintain to be an uncontroversial solution to resolve it. The proposed fix remained for a number of days and I explicitly stated my intent to employ the template to have the edit made, calling upon others to approve or state their objections, if any. After no objections were raised, I utilized the template. It was deactivated because of a misunderstanding by User:MSGJ. As this admin suggested I wait for an extended period of time, I, agreeing and complying with his request, did not reactivate the template. Later, User:Amatulic expressed the following:


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

And again:


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

To which I replied:


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

This statement constitutes no basis for an indefinite ban whatsoever. There is nothing on the page explaining the proper usage of the template that supports the view here that a proposed edit (an uncontroversial one at that) that has received no objections after a reasonable period of time cannot be implemented.. Moreover, User:Amatulic's suggestion that I "won't find an administrator on Wikipedia who will agree to a request to edit a contentious article without clear positive evidence of consensus" is a baseless opinion. First, the article may be contentious, but my proposed edit is not. Second, I did find an admin who very clearly agreed with my view on the proper use of the template. After the misunderstanding I noted above was cleared up with the admin who deactivated the template, that admin stated:


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

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


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

(5) I have in no way been uncivil. Nor did I accuse anyone of making personal attacks. User:Wgfinley is again being disingenuous. What I stated on numerous occasions is that people were relying on ad hominem argumentation, which they were. User:Wgfinley's misunderstanding of what an ad hominem argument is does not constitute a reasonable basis for an indefinite ban, any more than my repeated observations that others, rather than addressing the facts and logic of my argument(s), instead have attempted to appeal to supposed prejudice on my part. It's a fact that others did so, and this is, by definition, ad hominem argumentation. I've repeatedly requested other editors refrain from employing such logical fallacies in their responses, and instead address the issues I've raised substantively. My doing so does not constitute any basis whatsoever for an indefinite ban.

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


 * Reply to "Statement by User:Wgfinley:


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


 * Reply to "Outing Accusation":


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


 * Reply to "Six Day War ban"


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


 * Further remarks on charge of "tendentious editing"


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Reply to BorisG


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


 * Reply to Amatulic


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


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


 * Notice he stays "instances", plural. But there was only ONE other instance where I used the template. My use of the template generated NO DEBATE WHATSOEVER. Not a single person objected to my proposed edit As a matter of fact, the only two editors to even RESPOND to my use of the template were User:MSGJ, who said he would make the edit after given a bit more time, and User:Amatulic himself! So what "huge debate" is Amatulic talking about? There was none, and Amatulic is being totally disingenuous.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Reply to mbz1


 * User:Mbz1 states: "I have got an impression that User:JRHammond is using the words "ad hominem " way too often, and in response to practically every argument." (1) Mbz1 seems to have a personal issue with me, and he picked up the torch from Wgfinley in violating WP:OUTING in posting information personally identifying me. (2) Telling people they have employed ad hominem arguments is not among the reasons for which I was banned, so this is irrelevant. (3) The problem with ad hominem arguments is not that I observe that others employ ad hominem arguments a lot. The problem is that others employ ad hominem arguments a lot.


 * Take, for instance, the incident Mbz1 cites. In that incident, Amatulic had made an edit as per my "editprotected" request. In Amatulic's own words: "I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page history, found a consensus (not all in one place) for removal or replacement for two contentious sentences, and removed them." User:Ling.Nut responded to Amatulic by saying: "That was probably a bad move, Amatulic. How much time did you spend familiarizing yourself with these threads? The odds that JR will accept the insertion of a neutral sentence are vanishingly small; now we will need to spend weeks arguing about it. Thanks." I responded by observing that (a) this is an ad hominem argument; (b) Amatulic's action had removed false and misleading information from the article that Ling.Nut himself agreed was problematic and in need of replacement; and (c) that I had already agreed to a compromise solution proposed by User:BorisG, and that it was Ling.Nut who would not accept the insertion of BorisG's neutral solution, and thus that it was hypocritical of him to suggest that I would drag the discussion on for "weeks". These were valid and reasonable observations on my part.


 * I am not the one engaging in ad hominem arguments. My arguments are factually and logically sound. Unlike other editors, I don't find it necessary to engage in fallacious rhetorical devices. Am I to be punished for not engaging in this kind of behavior and insisting that others do not do so, either? JRHammond (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe you should take your accusations about outing out. I was outed a few times, and the first thing I have done, when I found out about this, was to ask it to be oversighted. You on the other hand did not even bother to remove so called outing from your talk page, and why to remove it? You are proud of the article "Yes, Jews killed Jesus too", aren't you? I do not even ask who else were killed by Jews So, I consider your ungrounded accusation of outing to be a harassment.BTW I opposed one of your blocks. So as you could see I have nothing against you personally, but I believe everything should be fair. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply to "Length"


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


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


 * The situation is simple, and grossly mischaracterized by WGFinley, who has previously blocked me on similarly spurious pretexts (you will observe the fact that I successfully had that block reversed because of its spurious nature). 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.


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


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


 * Reply to Jiujitsuguy


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


 * Reply to Ling.Nut


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


 * "I know that you're very invested in avoiding any text that affords the Israeli POV any toehold at all into legitimacy..."
 * "Your statement completely privileges the Arab viewpoint in every respect. This licenses blatant Arab propaganda, whether you realize it or not."
 * "Your perspective privileges the Arab narrative..."
 * "The odds that JR will accept the insertion of a neutral sentence are vanishingly small; now we will need to spend weeks arguing about it."


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


 * Reply to 99.254.145.130


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


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


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


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


 * Further Reply to Amatulic


 * In response, Amatulic said:


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


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


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


 * Here are the facts:


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


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


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


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


 * Those are the facts.


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


 * Further reply to Wgfinley


 * Wgfinley has now stated:


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


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


 * (1) The article contained a false statement on UN Resolution 242. It was recognized as problematic, and it was agreed that text should be replaced. There were no objections raised to replacing the text to correct the false statement. An agreement could not be reached on the replacement text, because User:Ling.Nut objected to at compromise solution proposed by User:BorisG, which I approved of. I saw no reason that the false statement should be allowed to remain in the article while the discussion continued on a replacement, so employed the template to have it removed. The first time I requested the edit, it was disabled without the explanation that there was "no consensus". There was no consensus on a replacement; yet there was a consensus that the text in question was problematic. The request was not for a replacement, but for the problematic text to be removed until a consensus could be arrived on a replacement. That's a reasonable request. So I re-enabled it, observing these points, and requested that if it was again disabled, an explanation be provided. It was disabled again on the grounds that there was not a consensus on the replacement wording; but, again, my request was not to put the proposed replacement wording in, but merely to remove the text everyone agreed was problematic until such a replacement could be agreed upon. So I re-enabled it and requested that the next admin who looked at it actually take the time to know what the request actually is before making a decision. That is a perfectly reasonable request, and a perfectly reasonable expectation with regard to the use of the template. Amatulic then granted that request, and rightly so. As he observed when he did so: "I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page history, found a consensus (not all in one place) for removal or replacement for two contentious sentences, and removed them." That was the right and reasonable course of action. Please remember, the heart of the matter here is improving the article, which this edit did by removing false information. The whole purpose of Wikipedia guidelines is summed up in WP:IAR: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."


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

REQUEST FOR ADMINS

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

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

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

Statement by User:Wgfinley
I had a whole section here but I'm removing it to save on clutter. I explained the ban on the user's talk page in detail so it can be found there. I think his statement is clear evidence of his tendentious, combative and disruptive nature. I stand by everything that was here previously I just no longer see a need for it and wish to keep this space tidy. --WGFinley (talk) 13:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


 * Two additional comments:


 * JRHammond states above that User:Jiujitsuguy is not an uninvolved user. This is correct, and confirms that User:Jiujitsuguy's statement is in the right place, as this section is specifically fot involved editors. - BorisG (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can someone please move the comment by an anonimous user from a section reserved for uninvolved admins? - BorisG (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since an admin already replied to it, it wouldn't make sense to move it out of the context anymore. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Amatulic
I came across the Six-Day War article during the course of administrative backlog patrolling, where I ran across an editprotected request. I spent a great deal of time reading the talk page history, found a consensus (not all in one place) for removal or replacement for two contentious sentences, and removed them. In the course of my investigation I discovered prior administrative actions regarding JRHammond including a previous ArbCom decision. At that point I decided to engage myself as a mediator, not taking sides in the debate, but establishing some ground rules for progress.

My first action was to stop what I perceived as misuse of the editprotected template. I saw instances of debate being generated by JRHammond placing that template, which is the reverse of what should happen: first debate, come to consensus, and then place an editprotected template to have the consensus change implemented. JRHammond insisted that he had been doing this, in spite of evidence on the same talk page of an editprotected template followed by a huge debate. He added that a requested change should be implemented for requests to which nobody objects or responds in any way, and stated repeatedly that he would continue using the template as he had been doing. I stated, repeatedly, that for a highly contentious article as this, lack of response doesn't imply consensus, and unless I see positive support for a change (not lack of any response) the change won't be implemented no matter how non-controversial JRHammond sees it. He stated that this standard is "unreasonable".

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

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

While I felt we were making slow progress prior to JRHammond's ban, I do agree that his activity on the talk page qualifies as tendentious, with the result that other good-faith contributors to the article were being chased off, and that is unacceptable. I have mixed feelings about an indefinite ban, but now that it is in place, the ban should not be lifted without an agreement from JRHammond to specific behavioral changes. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This appeal should focus on the behavioral rationale behind JRHammond's ban, not pointless bickering about who said what and when. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


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


 * I commented here as WGFinley did, with the reasoning that I was "involved" in the sense of actively trying to guide and mediate discussion on Talk:Six-Day War. Although my involvement was administrative, much of my statement above described my own history on that talk page, so it seemed out of place to post it in the "Result of the appeal". ~Amatulić (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ignore the latest diatribe, as it's hardly worth addressing, because the talk page speaks for itself. I find it curious that JRHammond chooses to attack every statement I make, in spite of the fact I have been impartial, even accepting one of JRHammond's edit requests, and exhorting others to weigh in regarding another so we could have consensus and move on.
 * Response to JRHammond's "facts"
 * Fact: The time stamps of the comments show conclusively that JRHammond approached MSGJ after I requested he withdraw his editprotected request. I'm certainly willing to assume good faith and accept JRHammond's word that this timing is coincidental and no canvassing was intended, and that my observation of his past behavior coupled with the suspicious timing gave me the impression of admin shopping.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * You have once again made numerous demonstrably false statements, in addition to misleading statements, as the foundation of your argument favoring rejecting my appeal, expressing falsehoods as "Fact", as demonstrated above -- thus once again demonstrating extreme prejudice against me. You have not demonstrated an "unwillingness to see other points of view" on my part. This is a baseless opinion, and does not constitute grounds for maintaining this ban. Where I have observed that others employed ad hominem arguments, it was because they had, in fact, done so. There is nothing unreasonable about requesting that, if people are to express disagreement with my arguments, that they do so on the basis of the facts and logic I present, rather than by appealing to supposed prejudice on my part (e.g. "His unwillingness to see other points of view" is, by definition, an ad hominem argument). My observations in this regard do not constitute any kind of reasonable basis to uphold this ban whatsoever. You have not demonstrated that I treat "multiple talk pages" (in fact, I've only been involved on two talk pages) as "a battleground". This is a baseless opinion, and not grounds to deny my appeal. I could just as easily argue that you are treating this appeal "as a battleground", as evidenced by your repeatedly making false and prejudicial statements against me. Finally, WP:TE applies to edits made to articles, not to talk pages. Even assuming I am biased (a suggestion I reject), this policy states: "Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." Inasmuch as I have not edited the article in question, an appeal to WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 04:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * JRHammond describes in his defense several incidents that he deems unworthy of a ban, and asks what has he done to deserve a ban. He has been asked several times to read Tendentious editing which others have observed is descriptive of JRHammond's conduct, but unfortunately I have seen no evidence yet that he has read it and taken it to heart. Tendentious editors can, and do, get banned for being tendentious. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:TE applies to edits made to articles, not to talk pages. Even assuming I am biased (a suggestion I reject), this policy states: "Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles." Inasmuch as I have not edited the article in question, an appeal to WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal.


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


 * "Inasmuch as I have not edited the article in question, an appeal to WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal. "  Enigma  msg  05:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * *Sigh*. It goes without saying that when I say I haven't edited the article, I mean I have not done so during the relevant period of time for which my alleged behavior has allegedly warranted this ban, which is the period of time since the previous block on me expired. So, again, inasmuch as I simply have not edited the article, an appeal to WP:TE cannot therefore constitute a basis for this ban, or for denying my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Frederico1234
I think the block was premature as a new admin had just arrived to the talk page and had begun mediating. I also think that User:Wgfinley, while acting in good faith in order to enable progress on the article, should have left this task to another admin due to his own previous involvement (the erroneous block, the outing ("JRHammond" is not his full name, so it was indeed outing)). --Frederico1234 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the previous 31h block: JRHammond was reported for 3RR violation here. As seen in that edit, the alleged reverts are the following: JRHammond was notified of the block here. I believe the diffs makes it clear that a) JRHammond did not violate 3RR and b) the stated reason for the block was indeed 3RR violation. --Frederico1234 (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 16 July @ 04:09
 * 16 July @ 04:58
 * 16 July @ 15:13
 * 16 July @ 17:45

Statement by mbz1

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


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

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

Statement by Ling.Nut

 * I share in the sentiment expressed by Amatulic statement above: "I have mixed feelings about an indefinite ban, but now that it is in place, the ban should not be lifted without an agreement from JRHammond to specific behavioral changes". I would add the word "definitely" before "should".
 * I suggest that these changes be discussed in a concrete manner in a relevant forum (probably this one).
 * User:JRHammond's account has only existed since 30 March 2010. If it is in fact the case that he has only been around since the end of March (and I have occasionally wondered about this), perhaps there are underlying aspects of Wikipedia's culture that he is not yet fully cognizant of or compliant with.
 * User:JRHammond's convictions in the topic area inspire an editing style that  acts as a very real barrier to cooperative editing. This makes it difficult (or even exhausting) for others to participate, creating a real barrier to the painstaking but cooperative approach inherent in editing any highly controversial topic in Wikipedia. His general demeanor varies from cooperative to combative, depending on the point being argued, its real-word consequences, and on its relationship to JR's perception of Truth. Whether it is deliberate WP:GAME and WP:PUSH or merely a case of zealous editing for Truth in the immediate present and at all costs [disregarding the cost to Wikipedia's editing processes], it does indeed at the very least tread on the warning track around WP:TE. In either case, I feel that JR needs to back up and rethink the social contract inherent in his voluntary decision to accept a role as an ongoing Wikipedia editor. It seems he perceives the process as a series of battles having winners and losers. His desire to defend his perceptions of real-world truth needs to be moderated  by a full understanding and acceptance of the roles, rules, guidelines and obligations involved in working within Wikipedia's editing framework and (perhaps especially) culture.&bull; Ling.Nut 00:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * JR has stated that I speak in vague generalities. In fact, I have done so deliberately, in order to pour liberal doses of WP:AGF on every one of my words. If I didn't AGF, then I would speak a great deal more clearly and sharply. Ambiguity leaves room for alternate interpretations, which in turn leaves room for AGF.
 * I will now speak clearly:
 * the "wall of words" approach to editing creates a noxious atmosphere. No one wants to participate if their every comment generates a small pamphlet-sized response. Two editors whom I respect have already popped in, been hit with the wall of words, and quietly disappeared. Speaking for myself, I sometimes feel a tiny bit abused, and often feel more than a little exhausted.
 * I am trying to AGF about the wall of words. It could be WP:GAME and WP:PUSH, or it could just be JR's personal style of communication. I AGF and assume the latter. That doesn't change the fact, however, that it is distinctly counterproductive if he is editing in good faith (conversely, it is an extremely productive and effective approach if he is not editing in good faith, that is, if he is WP:PUSH).
 * JR also seems to view editing as a battle for territory (no pun intended.. sincerely sorry.. but that's actually the image that comes to mind). Every phrase needs to be conquered at any cost, and then defended voluminously. It's a zero-sum game, with winners and losers.. Again, it creates a noxious atmosphere. This is, in some ways, worse than the wall of words.
 * I... you know, I AGF on all these points, but especially on this one: I just wonder if JR is aware that what he probably sees as righteous and noble persistence is perceived by others as admin shopping, guideline-evading, etc etc. I don't think he sees the situation in the same light as would editors who are uncommitted to either POV. Americans (and I am American) are brought up thinking far, far, far more about their personal rights than about their social contract and their obligations to the greater community. It's sad, but true. I think (or at least, I diligently AGF) that JR sees himself as exercising his inalienable personal rights. Unfortunately, he is doing so in a way that others (many others, apparently) perceive as tendentious editing, creating a noxious atmosphere, admin shopping, evading guidelines, and driving away away editors.&bull; Ling.Nut 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) Presenting a great many facts and well-reasoned arguments to support one's position ("wall of words") is not a violation of Wikipedia policy.
 * (2) See (1).
 * (3) Key phrase here being "seems to". Your entitled to your opinion, but that unsubstantiated opinion is no basis either to maintain this ban or deny my appeal. As for the "wall of words", see (1).
 * (4) You're projecting, and otherwise stating a completely speculative opinion, which is no basis either to maintain this ban or deny my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not say I wanted to maintain the ban. I do not support a permanent ban at this time; I do not believe you have used up all your chances yet... However, have you asked anyone a question that wasn't rhetorical? Have you let down your guard? Have you engaged in real dialog? Have you asked for feedback? Have you engaged in give and take discussion with anyone about their comments here? Have you attempted to move toward an understanding of what motivates people to request that you alter your behavior? Please don't assume it's all POV-based opposition. Sure, there are a few pro-Israel editors who wouldn't be appeased if you suddenly became Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mother Theresa all rolled into one, but that description certainly does not fit everyone here. I understand that the situation (appealing a permanent ban) would tend to make a person defensive, but your behavior here shows no openness to input from others, reflection, self-examination or compromise. I am not your adversary, and several others here also are not. What can we do to work together? You don't seem to understand that the issue in this forum is only perhaps 20% about the facts of the matter, but 80% about the nature of the interactions. &bull; Ling.Nut 14:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * I have never suggested and would certainly not agree that opposition to my edits are POV-based, so I don't know why you ask me not to assume so. Take you. You seem to have had concerns about proposed edits not on the basis of their merits/demerits, but solely on the basis of the fact that they were proposed by JRHammond, and you have repeatedly asserted on the Talk page that I am biased, without ever pointing to any violation of WP:NPOV in any of my edits or proposed edits whatsoever. On the contrary, I maintain that it is demonstrably true that my edits have corrected violations of WP:NPOV to make the article read more neutrally.


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


 * I have one purpose in mind here at Wikipedia, and that is to improve articles by correcting them for factual errors, misleading statements, and so on. I am very active in doing so, as evidenced by my "wall of words" (your phrase). But what is contained in my "wall of words"? Personal attacks on others? Threatening comments to scare people away (as has ludicrously been suggested here)? Irrelevant spam? My comments on the talk page speak for themselves. I present extensive arguments in support of my proposals by offering well-sourced facts and undeniable logic. Yet I am constantly met with opposition on grounds that have nothing to do with the actual merits/demerits of my arguments! Rather than substantively addressing the issues I raise and substantiating objections by pointing out any error I've made in fact or logic, other editors engage in ad hominem argumentation, constantly opposing me on the basis of some alleged bias, without ever demonstrating that anything I propose would violate WP:NPOV. I'm all about discussion, Ling.Nut, but discussions are a two-way street. Is it too much to expect that if people object to something I've proposed that they do so on the basis of the merits/demerits of that proposal, rather than with accusations against my character?


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


 * Try to understand how frustrating it is for me to have other editors refuse to address my proposals on the basis of my actual arguments. Take, for instance, my proposed edit on the Suez Crisis. This is the thing, apparently, that has got me banned. But let's look at it. Let's really look at this matter and judge my actions with the purpose and intent of Wikipedia guidelines in mind. You have a clear-cut case of violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT: "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency Force, to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent Palestinian fedayeen guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel." As I've demonstrated incontrovertibly, UNEF was not established only to prevent Arab attacks on Israel, but also to prevent Israeli attacks on Egypt, and it is the latter purpose that has much greater weight in the actual UNEF mandate itself. But I knew that changing the sentence to reflect the actual weight of the mandate (the whole context having been Israel's attack on Egypt!) would be met with opposition from the pro-Israel bunch, so I compromised right from the beginning in proposing the following absolutely neutral and more than reasonable alternative: "After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, the United Nations Emergency force (UNEF), "to secure and supervise the cessation of hostilities"."


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


 * You have User:Ruslik0 objecting on the grounds: "That UNEF acted to prevent fedayeen infiltration (from Gaza) is discussed at length in Middle East - UMEF I" So lets rationally examine that objection, also. Had I ever denied that fedayeen raids had been conducted on Israel? No. Does this objection address my concern over non-compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT? No. It simply does not address the issue, or the concern I raised, or point to any fault in my proposed solution. Moreover, check that source for yourself. You will find that fedayeen raids are explicitly referred to only once, and that was in the context of 1955, prior to the 1956 war! Elsewhere, it refers to raids, but in the context of attacks from both sides. And this source itself demonstrates that my concern over WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, because it places much greater emphasis on the UN's concern over Israel's attacks on Egypt than on fedayeen raids on Israel (e.g.: "However, a new situation developed in late October 1956, when Israel, in cooperation with the British and French Governments, launched an all-out attack on Egypt.", "The United Nations Emergency Force was the key element in the United Nations efforts to resolve the crisis arising from the military action of the Israeli and Anglo-French forces against Egypt."). So here, in a nutshell, you have an objection that completely ignores the actual issue raised, and which cites a source that actually demonstrates the validity of my whole point. I pointed this out to User:Ruslik0, but he, too, refused to be reasoned with.


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


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


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


 * Finally, the whole purpose and intent of Wikipedia policies is summed up by WP:IAR, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." All of my efforts have been directed in good faith towards the goal of improving the Six Day War article, and I stand by every one of my edits and proposed edits. I am blocked in that effort at every turn, which is extremely frustrating. If that frustration shows on occasion in my comments on the Talk page, I truly apologize if that has offended anyone. All I ask is that you try to understand where that frustration is coming from, and keep the bigger picture in mind. JRHammond (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can be immensely frustrating if you are passionate about the topic at hand, or about the encyclopedia as a whole. The longer I stay here, the more I situate myself within the framework of WP:DGAF. It is the only path to sanity.
 * You are currently facing calls for your permanent ban from one article, and some have mentioned a broader topic ban. That is a serious matter.
 * I... think... or hope... that the Arbs will see things as I do: that you deserve more chances to absorb Wikipedia's culture. But please do remember this: even if the block is completely lifted (which may happen, but... I dunno), you need to.. you need to see this as a wake-up call rather than an instance of persecution or whatever. In my opinion, if you continue to vent the level of frustration, and continue to... what can I say? if you continue to be so frantic and apoplectic in your dual quests for Truth and Redemption, you will continue to alienate people. If you continue to alienate people, there may very well come a day down the road when you will be topic banned from every article related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
 * You need to rethink your approach. Your approach simply is not working. Not only is it not working, it is making things much worse. Truth and Redemption are not items you can grab from the shelf. You cannot drive down the road to the Truth and Redemption store, stomp your foot, get red in the face, and demand your fair share. Truth and Redemption are plants that you nurture and grow over a very long time. patience. patience. patience. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


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

Comments by Gatoclass
PhilKnight, given that all the blocks and bans in question were handed out by WGFinley himself, whose own conduct in relation to JRH has been described or found to be inappropriate by more than one admin, escalating to a one-month ban would in my opinion only be rewarding the questionable conduct by WGF. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gatoclass. That is not true. A look at his block log shows that he was blocked on two other occasions by two other admins. Others had recognized his past problematic behavior and had instituted appropriate sanctions in the hope that this would address his aggressive and often disruptive behavior. Apparently, it had no effect.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * I don't know who else he banned and for what, but what I do know is that two of his admin actions here - firstly, a week-long block, and secondly, an indef page ban - have been described as inappropriate by several other admins, and that therefore his judgement in relation to JRH at least is suspect. Gatoclass (talk) 14:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Several others administrators? So far I saw only one uninvolved admin opposing the ban in this thread. Am I missing something? Gato, I hope that you'd agree that, if you "don't know who else he banned and for what", you have not enough information to make claims about "inappropriate" actions of the admin?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


 * One more thing. I believe that any problematic single article account as JRH is (please notice not a single purpose, but a single article account) in the area of conflict should be banned until a user will prove that they could contribute to other areas as well. Single article accounts in conflict areas usually have a strong agenda, and it is not healthy for the project.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I agree with the general statement, but especially as with JRHammond, whose conduct on the article and the article talk is disgraceful. Perhaps he can edit constructively elsewhere. Perhaps not. Either way, it would behoove us to find out.  Enigma  msg 00:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


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


 * WP:TE applies to a pattern of editing articles according to a clear bias in violation of WP:NPOV, and does not apply to discussion on the Talk page. I would challenge anyone to present even a single edit I've made to the article that was biased and in violation of WP:NPOV, but that's a moot issue. As I have not edited the article, and as I couldn't even if I wanted to, as it is and long has been under protection, I move for immediate acceptance of my appeal to lift the ban, on the grounds of a spurious pretext for the ban in the first place. WP:TE simply does not apply, because I simply have not edited the article. JRHammond (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


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


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


 * * Tendentious editing is editing which is partisan, biased or skewed taken as a whole.
 * * Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed.
 * * Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view.
 * * On returning from a block, your first action is to head right back to the article and repeat the edit.
 * * You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them.
 * etc... - BorisG (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All of which apply to edits to articles, not comments on Talk pages. The fact is that I haven't edited the article, so, again, WP:TE simply does not apply. JRHammond (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Enigma  msg 05:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So, like I said, since my previous block expired, I have not edited the article (nor could I possibly do so, even if I wanted, as the edit has since been protected), so, again, WP:TE simply does not apply in the case of the current ban, the stated pretexts for which are alleged behaviors since my return from that block. It would be nice if those arguing in favor of denying my appeal would not continually be so disingenuous and prejudicial. JRHammond (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not what you said. You said at least three times that you have not edited the article at all.  Enigma  msg 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, when I say I have not edited the article, I don't mean ever, I mean during the relevant period of time for the purposes of this current ban, which, needless to say, is since my previous block expired. That goes without saying. Or, at least, it should go without saying. I regret that that clearly has proved not to be the case, and that it has become necessary to point out the obvious to you. Once again, I have not edited the article during the relevant period of time for which my alleged behavior ostensibly has warranted this current ban, so WP:TE simply does not apply. JRHammond (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Next time try saying what you mean, instead of saying A and then, when called on it, claiming you mean B. Basically, what you seem to be saying is that since you haven't had the opportunity to tendentiously edit the article because it's been protected recently, you shouldn't be banned for your previous tendentious editing on the article and your current impossible behavior on the talk page. That about cover it?  All your history is of relevance here, not merely what you've done over the past week or two.  Enigma  msg  14:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Enigmaman
I have no history with the article in question, but did block JRHammond for edit-warring. For my troubles, I got a series of uncivil comments and borderline personal attacks from JRHammond. His bone of contention was that he technically did not violate 3RR. Whether that's true or not, he'd been very clearly edit warring on a sanctioned article for an extended period. As was noted by someone else, WP:TE could be describing JRHammond. His approach is a battleground approach, and simply won't play nice with any editors. He will not brook any disagreement with anything he says whatsoever. His presence on the Six Day War article is not helpful, and this can be seen from the article talk page. As I said above: Perhaps he can edit constructively elsewhere. Perhaps not. Either way, it would behoove us to find out.  Enigma  msg 01:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


 * All of this clearly demonstrates your extreme prejudice towards me, which I move should disqualify you from judging in the case of my appeal. JRHammond (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It does nothing of the sort. It does show that I blocked you for edit warring, which you were, and which everyone has agreed to except for yourself. You can post a thousand screeds, and it still won't change the fact that you were edit warring on Six Day War and you deserved to be blocked.  Enigma  msg 05:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in the facts, not your unsubstantiated opinions, and not your demonstrably false claims. JRHammond (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, let's have some facts. 1)Under the Wikipedia definition, you were edit warring. 2)Every administrator who commented about the block agreed with it. 3)You were blocked three more times after the block I made, by two other admins. 4)You were warned by yet another admin to quit it with the personal attacks. 5)Despite your claims to the contrary, you repeatedly reverted on the Six Day War article, which fits in well with WP:TE. Those are all facts. No demonstrably false claims to be found.  Enigma  msg 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The facts are precisely as I stated them above, every single point the accuracy of which anyone here can verify for themselves, and the bottom line is that your claim that I had committed "edit warring" was based entirely on the claim that I had committed "a clear violation of WP:3RR", which was demonstrably false, as was pointed out to you not only by myself, but also by two other admins, one of whom concluded: "I agree that a block for edit warring might have been appropriate. 'But you did erred when presenting it as a case of 3RR violation when it clearly wasn't. The offender deserves to know what he did wrong. This case hasn't been handled very well.''. JRHammond (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's false. The block was for edit warring or 3RR, as stated in your block log. As for your quote, you attribute it to an admin, when in reality, it came from Frederico, who is certainly not an admin. Please stick to the facts. Saying stuff like you've never edited Six Day War and that Frederico is an admin displays a disturbing lack of knowledge. The admins who commented on it, supported the block. And I should remind you again that you've been blocked three other times, and none of those blocks were issued by me.  Enigma  msg 15:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Enigma, I don't think you are allowed to block someone for a personal attack against youself. - BorisG (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An admin can block for any personal attacks, against himself or otherwise. What I think you're referring to is that it's generally discouraged for an admin to block a user venting about a block on their talk, and to allow for an outsider to make the block if necessary.  Enigma  msg 03:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit I do not know the the policies and traditions very well, but common sense suggests that it would be ill-advised for an admin to block a user for personal attack against themselves, if only because it is hard for them to judge this objectively. It is much better that this is done by a third party. Ditto for threats to do so. Respectfully. - BorisG (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ruslik0
I think the presence of JRHammond on the talk page of Six-day war has not been constructive so far. I do not think that statements like ''That's your argument? On the basis of its patent idiocy, your objection on the basis that a recommendation is not a recommendation is hereby dismissed or As your objection doesn't address that fundamental point, it is hereby dismissed. or Your lending of equal weight to Blum's totally baseless argument is unreasonable, and your objection on that basis must be dismissed.'' serve to achieve any consensus. I think JRHammond far too often dismisses other viewpoints as nonsense or ad hominen without any reason. I have not edited recently due to traveling, but when I returned I found that JRHammond flooded the talk page with editprotect requests hoping that some passing by admin would entertain at least some of them. I think that the indefinite topic ban should stand. Ruslik_ Zero 11:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

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


 * 
 * 
 * 

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

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


 * Carrying the debate on the article you've been banned from editing (and getting into disagreements) onto the talkpage of others is clearly gaming the system and canvassing. This is troubling when coupled with the fact you've previously demonstrated you will willfully disregard bans.  Further, I see you have moved over to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 now and started further disagreements there.  UN242 is the centerpiece of the edits that have gotten you banned, then blocked, then banned and is WP:GAME as well.  You've already started your hostile style of discussion there..  I haven't even touched your conduct on this appeal, which you should be afforded some leeway since you are banned but the way you have sought out anyone who has disagreed with you is not doing yourself any favors.  This is all I'm going to say on this matter.  --WGFinley (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by User:JRHammond

 * This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
 * The ban strikes me as inappropriate, given Wgfinley's previous involvement; it should have been left to uninvolved editors, and is as such suspect. I recommend lifting the ban immediately, and presenting it to other admins for consideration. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the article talk page from Talk:Six-Day War onwards, and I certainly agree that Wgfinley JRHammond's conduct is a problem. From Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles I gather the last ban was for 48 hours, so jumping up to indefinite is perhaps going too far. Although I respect what jpgordon is saying, I think I'd prefer to keep the ban in place, but shorten it to a week. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * actually after his 48 hour topic ban he got topic banned again for 2 weeks as well as blocked for 7 days. the next step up from this, surely is not a step down to a week. seems like there is only so far you can go before you reach the point of indef. 99.254.145.130 (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. Perhaps a month? PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


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


 * Based on recent discussion with JRHammond on my talk page, I'm dropping my objections to the ban. In fact, I think it should be expanded so that JRHammond is banned from discussing the article on other pages. Regarding the question of uninvolved, I think we've got to the stage where a more detailed statement is required. ArbCom have recently given some relevant rulings, however I think a greater amount of clarity is required. For example if an admin blocks a user, and the block is overturned, does that make the admin involved? How about if just a warning is overturned? In addition, the question of whether admins should edit the article to revert changes made against consensus perhaps should be reviewed. I'm not sure whether this should be clarified by the community, or we should request clarification from ArbCom. PhilKnight (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the one-month ban of JRH from Six-Day War and its talk page. JRHammond is so far a single-purpose account. Of his 447 Wikipedia edits, 234 are comments at Talk:Six-Day War. His wall-of-text postings seem to have exhausted the patience of the other editors at the talk page. He takes advantage of this silence to file editprotected requests, asserting that his changes ought to be made if no one responds. (To see the four examples of this, search Talk:Six-Day War for 'editprotected'). He stopped only on September 3, after Wgfinley imposed the talk-page ban which we are discussing here. A decision by admins to lift the ban would be a vote to have JRH continue 'doing his thing' at Talk:Six-Day War, which looks like an invitation for more tendentious editing. If the consensus here favors JRH's ban, I suggest that admins consider whether it might need extending to the entire topic of Israel's military actions and related UN resolutions, in all Wikipedia spaces including user talk. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The above is approaching 125kb, at least a third of which is from the petitioner, who I refer to WP:TLDR. Reading through this request, I am not inclined to overturn the ban at this point, and it doesn't appear that the consensus among admins is leaning that way either. If JRHammond wishes to refile a request to overturn the ban, he is instructed to limit his statement to no more than 1000 words and is also advised that uncontroversial participation in other areas of Wikipedia will be seen favorably. If an admin feels that an expansion of the ban is warranted, they are free to do so even though I closed this request. NW ( Talk ) 03:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)