User talk:Is not a

Appeal

MastCell (talk · contribs) needs to present evidence to support his accusations and administrative action, which he calls "bold".... (Perhaps he could consider whether another explanation is more likely or simpler, besides trying to find facts that seem to be explained by his hypothesis whilst ignoring others. Certainly he should, as I shall show.)

MastCell accused me in his template above of "editing combatively on contentious articles" when he tried to justify his block announced at ANI . He also accused me of "WP:GHBH", which links to "disruptive editing or vandalism", falsehoods that of course cannot be supported by evidence. He certainly presented no evidence of my being a sockpuppet, so I won't waste time defending myself against his utterly unsubstantiated accusation.

On the contrary, a look at the histories of the articles I edited before shows even more clearly that I was following policy and that my concerns have been shared by others at WP:BLPN and at WP:AfD discussions. These articles are listed on User page. A look at my editing history shows rather that I have tried to follow the WP:BRD policy---extremely successfully with Fag Army, Donbass Association Malmö, Russian National Association, Jehovah's Witnesses in Sweden, Seventh-day Adventist Church of Tonga, and George Benson - and with headaches on Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland, and Neoconservatism.

• Jeffro77 (talk · contribs) can vouch that I did not edit war but improved George Benson with good references about the question of his being (or not) a Jehovas Witness. Even when I thought we had shown that Benson had publicly stated having donated money to Watchtower Society and for thanking "the name of Jehovah", I left the article alone rather than edit war. He can also vouch that I acknowledged not having understood the WP:BLP-Cat policy at the beginning and that I acknowledged his being correct.

• In the articles on neoconservatism and Robert Kagan, I preferred not to be drawn into further conflict with Ubikwit (who has been accusing me of being Kagan from the get go and has been making accusations in nearly every talk-page or bulletinboard edit). I had left Rjensen (talk · contribs) and Collect (talk · contribs) and the bulletin boards (RS and BLP) to do damage control; the discussions at the articles and the bulletin boards shows that my actions have been in compliance with policy.

• Of course I have made errors, and obviously a big error: I tried to explain my concerns about linking to a site that has been labeled "anti-semitic" by pieces in The Atlantic Monthly and Commentary (quoted in the above section). Similarly I have raised concerns about Ubikwit's having since the summer tried to label Robert Kagan as Jewish and having suggested since the summer that Kagan may have double loyalty (putting Israel's security about US national interests in the conduct of foreign policy). Obviously I erred in my phrasing, and others have shown that one may raise valid concerns in a way that that does not seem to cast aspersions. I apologize to Ubikwit for my errors. I would have apologized earlier, but Gamaliel had already imposed a ban from discussing Ubikwit (albeit without authorization from policy). I trust that I may defend myself against these accusations and an indefinite block by stating these facts and by apologizing; otherwise, if not, then [censored].

Thus, the statement that I have been editing combatively on contentious articles is misleading, grossly distorting the truth that I have been productively editing on contentious articles - at least articles free from Ubikwit. The talk page histories and noticeboard discussions (RS, BLP) show that my editing has been compliant with policy, especially on the articles on which Ubikwit has been active. Those histories also show that Collect (talk · contribs) and Rjensen (talk · contribs) have also been attacked by Ubikwit, just as I have been. Editor Collect has previously documented that Ubikwit has been sanctioned by Arbcom repeatedly and been at ANI so many times that Ubikwit was nearly banned from ANI; the diffs are in Collect's discussion at the current ANI thread. Finally, I repeat that on the articles and lately also at the discussion boards, I have left Collect (talk · contribs) and Rjensen (talk · contribs) to try to protect Wikipedia and living persons from non-compliant edits - partly because I prefer not to deal with Ubikwit's walls of text, sourcing, and personal attacks (like the SPI accusations that I was Kagan).

Again, I am sorry to have to have mentioned Ubikwit in defending myself against an improper indefinite block, but MastCell's accusations needed to be rebutted. I shall hereafter avoid and ignore Ubikwit, as I have done even while contesting the improper IBAN, except as I need to defend myself against unjust accusations. (Of course, I request a two-way IBAN with Ubikwit.)

Sincerely, is a 08:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment - I have had some relatively minor disagreements with User:Is not a. His assessment of the discussion about the article George Benson is accurate enough, and he did eventually concede to the point I had made about categorisation of articles about people, though it was a few days later. I haven't seen anything in my personal experience that I think would necessitate an indefinite block. I'm not aware of the circumstances of the block.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Response by an administrator

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Is not a (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

See above is a 08:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@PhilKnight:, administrators are not allowed to block editors without due cause, and here MastCell has made unsubstantiated accusations that are contrary to the facts, as I have demonstrated above. Did you bother to review the noticeboard or talkpage discussions (which have overwhelmingly supported my edits)?

What damage or disruption have I caused?

I have acknowledged my error in discussing contributions regarding "The Israel lobby", above, and I have complied with the topic ban imposed by Gamaliel unilaterally (contrary to the topic-ban policy). Far from being disruptive, I have been docile in trying to get an unjust topic-ban lifted. is a 10:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Simply saying 'see above' is not a compelling unblock request. In your next unblock request, I suggest you explain why you should be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@PhilKnight: Before responding to any unblock request, you should read the appeal, particularly when it is labeled in this subsection, "Appeal" immediately before the appeal notice (apart from Jeffro77's brief statement). Challenging the accusations in a block suffice for an appeal. One does not need to agree with false accusations, as a matter of policy, of course.

Please review this appeal, or remove your notice to avoid prejudicing the appeal.

is a 10:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the 'Appeal' section doesn't say much about why you were blocked which was "obvious sockpuppet, being used to evade scrutiny and segregate contentious contributions in violation of WP:SOCK". PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's obviously a contrary-to-facts accusation, as I noted above. The false accusation and your repetition of it simply ignores my editing history. Ãlso, I have already been falsly accused by a closed SPI case. You and MastCell and others should stop accusing me of being a sockpuppet. If you have evidence, then let's hear it. is a 10:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

As invited by the blocking administrator, MastCell, I have resumed editing in my old account, Dear ODear ODear, which was never used during time that User:Is_not_a was active, in compliance with WP policy .

LLAP, Dear ODear ODear 10:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)