Gebruiker:Martinvl/Sandput

Die swaartekrag F tussen die aarde en 'n proefliggaam kan beskryf word deur Newton se Swaartekragwet:

$F=-G{\frac {m_{s}m_{0}}{r^{2}}}$

waar

G = gravitasiekonstante.

m_s = massa van die aarde

m₀ = maasa van 'n proefliggaam

r = afstand tussen die middelpunte van die aarde en die middlepunt van die proefliggaam

Volgens die tweede wet van Newton is die wantskap tussen die versnelling van 'n proefliggaam en die swaartekrag:

$F=m_{0}g$

waar

g = Versnelling van swaartekrag

Vanaf hiedie twee vergelykings kry ons 'n theoretiese vergelyking vir die waarde van die versnelling van swaartekrag

$g=-G{\frac {m_{s}}{r^{2}}}.$

Waneer g die versnelling is by die seevlak, is die vergelyking van die vermnindering van die versnellingmet hoogte bo die seevlak:

$\Delta g=2g{\frac {\Delta r}{r}}.$

Weergegewens vir San Francisco
Maand	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Mei	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Okt	Nov	Des	Jaar
Gemiddelde maksimum (°C)	13,6	15,4	16,4	17,1	17,7	18,9	18,8	19,3	21,0	20,6	17,6	14,1	17,6
Gemiddelde temperatuur (°C)	10,6	12,2	12,9	13,4	14,2	15,3	15,4	15,9	17,1	16,6	14,1	11,1	14,1
Gemiddelde minimum (°C)	7,6	8,8	9,4	9,8	10,6	11,6	12,1	12,5	13,1	12,4	10,6	8,2	10,6
Neerslag (mm)	112	97	72	36	14	4	0	1	6	27	65	104	538
Bron: Weatherbase

Weergegewens vir Kaapstad
Maand	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Mei	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Okt	Nov	Des	Jaar
Hoogste maksimum (°C)	39,3	38,3	40,7	38,6	33,5	29,8	29,0	32,0	33,1	37,2	39,9	35,4	40,7
Gemiddelde maksimum (°C)	26,1	26,5	25,4	23,0	20,3	18,1	17,5	17,8	19,2	21,3	23,5	24,9	22,0
Gemiddelde temperatuur (°C)	20,4	20,4	19,2	16,9	14,4	12,5	11,9	12,4	13,7	15,6	17,9	19,5	16,2
Gemiddelde minimum (°C)	15,7	15,6	14,2	11,9	9,4	7,8	7,0	7,5	8,7	10,6	13,2	14,9	11,4
Laagste minimum (°C)	7,4	6,4	4,6	2,4	0,9	−1,2	−1,3	−0,4	0,2	1,0	3,9	6,2	−1,3
Neerslag (mm)	15	17	20	41	69	93	82	77	40	30	14	17	515
Sonskynure (u/d)	10,9	10,5	9,4	7,8	6,6	5,8	6,2	6,8	7,5	9,0	10,3	10,8	8,5
Reëndae (d)	5,5	4,6	4,8	8,3	11,4	13,3	11,8	13,7	10,4	8,7	4,9	6,2	103,6
Humiditeit (%)	71	72	74	78	81	81	81	80	77	74	71	71	75,9
Bron: World Meteorological Organization NOAA

Weergegewens vir Brussel (Ukkel)
Maand	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	Mei	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Okt	Nov	Des	Jaar
Hoogste maksimum (°C)	14,4	19,6	23,0	27,8	29,8	34,0	35,4	35,3	29,9	26,6	18,6	16,7	35,4
Gemiddelde maksimum (°C)	5,7	6,6	10,4	14,2	18,1	20,6	23,0	22,6	19,0	14,7	9,5	6,1	14,2
Gemiddelde temperatuur (°C)	3,3	3,7	6,8	9,8	13,6	16,2	18,4	18,0	14,9	11,1	6,8	3,9	10,5
Gemiddelde minimum (°C)	0,7	0,7	3,1	5,3	9,2	11,9	14,0	13,6	10,9	7,8	4,1	1,6	6,9
Laagste minimum (°C)	−16,8	−12,0	−10,2	−4,7	−1,0	1,7	4,4	5,9	3,7	−2,0	−6,6	−12,3	−16,8
Neerslag (mm)	76,1	63,1	70,0	51,3	66,5	71,8	73,5	79,3	68,9	74,5	76,4	81,0	852,4
Sonskynure (u/d)	1,9	2,7	3,7	5,3	6,2	6,3	6,5	6,1	4,8	3,6	2,2	1,5	4,2
Reëndae (d)	19,2	16,3	17,8	15,0	16,2	15,0	14,3	14,5	15,7	16,6	18,8	19,3	198,7
Bron: KMI (1981-2010), NOAA (1961-1990)

Somerset
	Ligging in Engeland
Seremoniële graafskap Somerset
Hoofstad	Taunton
Oppervlakte	4 171 km2
Bevolking	908 554 (2011)
Bevolkingsdigtheid	218 inw./km2
Administratiewe (nie-metropolitaanse) graafskap
Streek	Suidwes-Engeland
Administratiewe setel	Taunton
ISO 3166-2:	GB-SOM
Oppervlakte	3 451 km2
Bevolking	529 972 (2011)
Bevolkingsdigtheid	154 inw./km2
Webtuiste	http://www.somerset.gov.uk/
Distrikte
Spelthorne Stad (Bourough) Runnymede Surrey Heath Stad (Borough) Woking Elmbridge Stad (Borough) Guildford Stad (Borough) Waverley Mole Valley Epsom and Ewell Reigate and Banstead Tandridge

Somerset [ˈdɔrsɨt], histories ook Somersetshire, is 'n graafskap aan die suidelike oewer van die Bristol Kanaal. Die seremoniële graafskap met 'n oppervlakte van 4 172 km² sluit naas die nie-metropolitaanse graafskap, wat deur die Somerset-graafskapsraad (Somerset County Council) geadministreer word, ook Bath and North East Somerset en North Somerset in wat onder die beheer van unitêre owerhede (unitary authorities) val. Die administratiewe setel (county town) van die nie-metropolitaanse graafskap is Taunton, van die unitêre owerheid Bath and North East Somerset is Bath en van die unitêre owerheid North Somerset is Weston-super-Mare.

Somerset grens in die suidweste aan Devon, aan Dorset in die suidooste, Wiltshire in die ooste en Gloucestershire en die stad Bristol in die noorde.

Appeal by User:Martinvl

***************************************************************
*                                                             *  
*  I request that Beeblebrox recuse himself from considering  *  
*   this appeal as he has already participated in this case.  *       
*                                                             * 
*************************************************************** 

I request that the following sanctions against me be lifted or, since they were based on an ANI that had more in common with mob justice than with a tribunal, be retrospectively annulled:

• A one year topic ban imposed by TParis on 25 October 2013 in response to an allegation made by Wee Curry Monster.
• An indefinite block imposed by Drmies on 28 October 2013.
• A topic ban of unspecified length on Simple Wikipedia.
• An indefinite block on Simple Wikipedia.

The grounds for this request are:

• I failed to respond in an appropriate manner when User:Wee Curry Monster canvassed for support after publishing the ANI that led to the first first topic ban. Subsequent actions by Wee Curry Monster has led me to believe that the original ANI was published with maliciuous intent.
• When I comnplained about Wee Curry Monster's canvassing, I should have cited the essay WP:FALSECONSENSUS. I was not aware of the essay at the time.
• Administrators User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:GiantSnowman showed a disregard of their responsibilities by wikilawyering in support of Wee Curry Monster's canvassing, even though his canvassing was a "text-book" example of canvassing. Subsequent, unrelated actions by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves have led me to believe that he has a poor grasp of his responsibilities.
• I believe that User:TParis was fooled by the urgent wording of Wee Cury Monster's request for a neutrasl adminstrator to look into matters. As a result TParis did a rushed job, missed many important facts and by issuing me with a topic ban, created a "blue-on-blue" incident. Subsequent comments by User:Wee Curry Moinster suggest to me that he intended to deceive the administrator concerned.
• I should not have taken matters into my own hands when User:TParis issued a topic ban, even though that ban was technically a "blue-on-blue" incident.
• When Drmies assessed my appeal, she was fooled by statements by User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:GiantSnowman that I "did not get it". In this appeal, I will show that it was User:EatsShootsAndLeaves who did "not get it", not me.
• The grounds for my sanctions on SIMPLE were justified soley on grounds that I had already blocked on EN. I beleive that once the sanctions on EN have been lifted, any rationale for their retention on SIMPLE will fall away.

Having to fight what I believe to be malice and deceit from User:Wee Curry Monster, incompetance from User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and hassle from a DeFacto sockpuppet, I decided to accept the "standard offer" before continuing my appeal. During that time, unrelated actions by User:Wee Curry Monster and User:EatsShootsAndLeaves convinced me of their inappropriate actions.

I have also presented a number of Mitigating facts. These include

• Cataloging WP:Good Articles with I have promoted.
• Work that I have done on other language Wikipedias.
• Training sessions in which I have assisted.

As a result of a heated argument with User:EatsShootsAndLeaves about certain legal matter, I have looked up the actual legal position. My findings, which are summarised as an appendix, are:

• Action by Wikipedia against editors is in certain circumstances constrained by law.
• The essay WP:FALSECONSENSUS should be taken seriously.

Chronology and comment

Wikilawyering by administrators

My interaction with User:GiantSnowman and User:EatsShootsAndLeaves began when I tried to draw Wee Curry Monster’s canvassing to attention by creating a separate subsection for my own use (as is the norm in Arbcom appeals). User:Beyond My Ken, by his own authority and in brazen defiance of WP:TALKO, archived my changes (and effectively hiding them from other editors). I unarchived and an edit-war developed in which GiantSnowman and EatsShootsAndLeaves supported Beyond my Ken. I acknowledge that at this stage I should have been more decisive and used the WP:CLOSE mechanism to request closure of the ANI rather than disrupting the ANI in the way that I did.

When I asked GiantSnowman and EatsShootsAndLeaves (both are administrators) to deal with Wee Curry Monster’s canvassing, both reacted by wikilawyering on behalf of Wee Curry Monster. It is quite probable that this wikilawyering, which took place on my Talk Page rather than within the ANI proper played an indirect role in influencing TParis when he served a topic ban on me.

When Drmies sought advice, both GiantSnowman and EatsShootsAndLeaves alleged that I "did not get it". This undoubtedly played a major role in Drmies serving me with an indefinite block. The support given to Beyond My Ken by GiantSnowman and EatsShootsAndLeaves when he was breaching WP:TALKO and their failure of to implement the requirements of WP:FALSECON suggests to me that there are certain areas that they "did not get". In particular I take grave exception to User:EatsShootsAndLeaves' demands that my appeal must acknowledge my own actions when all that I was doing was defending my own position against Wee Curry Monster and more importantly, against his support of Wee Curry Monster's malice.

I have discussed areas that I "did not get" in the sections "Legal background" and "Disruptive editing".

• ESL wrote "Maybe "mob rule" does equal WP:CONSENSUS ... but hey, you AGREED to that when you signed up. " .
• See also ESL's comments regarding Josephson.
• Community said that BPL does not apply to editors - ESL

Deceit by User:Wee Curry Monster

At the time that the ANI was active, User:EzEdit, a sockpuppet of the banned user DeFacto had been disrupting work that I was doing by refusing to observe the WP:BRD convention. An SPI against him had failed, and, as his modus operandi was to use a different sockpuppet for each "mission", I was trying to gather sufficient evidence to neutralise his disruption. By this time activity on the ANI had gone quiet and Wee Curry Monster, fearing that he would lose the ANI, accused me of edit-warring, requesting an uninvolved administrator to take action. I started preparing a WP:SPA notice, but 17 minutes later User:TParis had placed a topic ban on me.

To the uninvolved observer, Wee Curry Monster's accusation might have looked sound, but five months later, Wee Curry Monster wrote "It appears that he [me] and his nemesis User:DeFacto ....". The use of the word "nemesis" suggests to me that Wee Curry Minster was fully aware of the on-going conflict between DeFacto and me and that EzEdit was a sockpuppet of DeFacto. He should therefore have realised that such an accusation should not have held water, but he was desperate to get me blocked that he stooped to peddle this level of deceit. Unfortunately User:TParis took the bait and over-reacted. (See next section)

In an unrelated posting, WCM claimed that he had been "civil" during the previosu six months. This deceit is hardly civil.

"Blue on blue" by Administrator TParis

TParis was alerted to the ANI by a statement posted by Wee Curry Monster at 17:00 on 25 October 2013 that I was "again edit-warring". At 17:16 TParis closed the ANI and at 17:17 he imposed a one-year topic ban on me. I was in fact trying supress disruption by EzEdit, somebody against whom I had previously filed an SPI and who has since been identified as a sock-puppet of DeFacto.(Ref: . It is my belief that the wording of Wee Curry Monster's posting caused TParis to misjudge the urgency of the situation and that he relied unduly on Wee Curry Monster's assessment.

TParis rejected my claim that vote-stacking with the statement:

"I have fully reviewed Martinvl's counter claim of vote stacking and determined that his evidence failed to meet the threshold.” (Ref: ANI – closing statement)

I don’t believe that he had time to "fully review" anything. Reading 8917 words in 16 minutes requires a sustained reading speed of over 9.2 words per second (before allowing time to prepare responses, follow up diffs etc). This statement raises a number of questions:

• Did he follow up the discussion on my Talk Page or did he rely entirely on evidence the ANI itself? Was he even aware that there was evidence on the Talk Page?
• What was the threshold that he used to dismiss my claim of "vote stacking"? Part of my claim was on my Talk Page (see previous point). How does it match up to the threshold suggested in WP:FALSECON (ie zero tolerance)?
• To what extent should WP:FALSECON be taken into account (even retrospectively since TParis might not have been aware of its full implications)?

When publishing the ANI, Wee Curry Monster identified three specific articles/talk pages that were of interest. The number of editors who had contributed to each of the items of interest were 6, 18 and 0 respectively. Of the 24 users, 2 contributed to both the first and second articles, leaving 22 editors in all that had an interest. Wee Curry Monster notified 3 editors in his first tranche of notifications, and 4 in the second, all of whom supported his point of view. Why does notification of 7 editors out of 22 constitute a "threshold". In my view, the real threshold is whether or not the notification followed a neutral policy, which, in this case, Wee Curry Monster failed to do.

The speed with which TParis responded not only suggests that either he did a half-job in analysing the situation or that he placed undue reliance on Wee Curry Monster's assessment of the situation. In the event by topic banning me while I was preparing a against EzEdit he created what in military circles is called a "blue-on-blue incident" by halting the WP:SPA that I preparing against EzEdit. It should be noted that EzEdit was finally confirmed as a sock-puppet 8 days later.

Drmies

In making her indefinite block, Drmies relied on the advice of four editors. Two of those editors were administrators and therefore the ones whose advice Drmies would most greatly value. Unfortunately these two were GiantSnowman and EatsShootsAndLeaves whose own mishandling of the canvassing issue totally compromised their statements. As such Drmies’ subsequent actions should be viewed with caution.

Mitigating factors

Wikimedia training

I have attended the Wikimedia trainers course and have assisted at a number of training events including one on 28 October 2013 - the day that I was served with in indefinite block.

I have also been invited by Katie Chan (WMF:London) signify whether or not I would be interested in at-tending a one day refresher course on training editors.

I have been invited to help lead a training session for microbiology on 19 June 2014.

English Wikipedia

I have taken four articles to Good Article status:

• Proposed redefinition of SI base units
• Metric system (500k+ hits per year)
• International System of Units (500k+ hits per year)
• History of the metric system

I have been principal editor in the following articles that have been rated "B class" by at least one Wikiproject:

• International Bank Account Number (1M+ hits per year)
• Imperial and US customary measurement systems
• Metrication in the United Kingdom
• Introduction to the metric system

The article Proposed redefinition of SI base units is likely to attract considerable attention in November this year when these proposals are actually dis-cussed by the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM). I am by far the principal contributor to this article.

I tutor 17 and 18-year old students in physics and maths on a one-to-one basis. I often use Wikipedia articles to illustrate points, especially those articles on which I have worked.

For the last 18 months I have been harassed by sockpuppets of DeFacto. During the course of handling this ANI:

• I had to request that action be taken against R.stickler (a DeFacto sockpuppet) under WP:OUTING.
• In addition, I believe that a new user, User:Carlton Card, who has concentrated on the article Metrication in the United Kingdom is also a sockpuppet of DeFacto. Given the article in question is mainly my creation and the tedium associated with removing DeFacto's sockpuppets, nobody else has had the time to take on the tedious job of proving that Carlton Card is a sockpuppet of DeFacto.

Other language Wikipedias

Since my block, I have been active on the Afrikaans Wikipedia.

While in the Netherlands, I saw a photo opportunity to illustrate the article Kelvin. This article appears in 98 languages, but none of the articles had a suitable photo. I have now loaded the photo into Wikimedia Commons and onto 21 versions of Wikipedia including all the major languages (apart from English). I supplied the captions for three versions and local editors supplied captions for another five versions.

Conclusion

In this appeal I have discussed two issues – that of WP:FALSECON and that of how I handled things.

In my view, there can be no argument that Wee Curry Monster showed bad faith in canvassing for support. Canvassing for support in a siutuation that relies on consensus is electoral fraud. WP:FALSECON is quite clear – the canvassing should have been stopped by any administrator who became aware of it. Had it been stopped at the beginning, this whole saga would never have happened.

In analysing everything I believe that my behaviour, the behaviour of Wee Curry Minster of GiantSnowman and of EatsShootsAndLeaves did not come up to scratch. I trust that the analysis that I have done of my own behaviour, the research that I have done into background issues and the lessons that I have learnt are sufficient that Arbcom see fit to annul or at least to lift all sanctions that are currently in force against me and to enable me to contribute both to Wikipedia and the WMF educational functions.

Since all the sanctions against me arose from this ANI and the ANI was tainted from the very beginning by Wee Curry Monster's electoral fraud (canvassing), I formally request that such all sanctions be annulled.

Appendix A - Legal situation

Some of the statements made by certain editors regarding legal issues were pure nonsense – whether or not the courts can [hypothetically] interfere in the running of Wikipedia. Contrary to what was written in the essay WP:NOJUSTICE, I found that the courts can in certain circumstances intervene and that the proposals made in the essay WP:FALSECON aim to address some of those circumstances. Moreover, WP:FALSECON was directly applicable in my case.

Relevant law

In the course of my arguing with administrators User:GiantSnowman and User:EatsShootsAndLeaves about whether or not they should annul the ANI, I touched on the points of "Natural justice" and "Right of reply", both of which they challenged. I have since read up on the legal situation. My findings were:

• In determining Wikipedia policy, both the law of the State of Florida and the law of the State of California should be examined.

• The ruling of an English judge in the case "Dawkins v. Antrobus", heard in London in 1881 has been cited in California, Florida and many other jurisdictions. The case arose when Dawkens was summarily expelled from "The Travellers Club" for distributing caricatures that ridiculed the committee members. Dawkens took the club to court. The judge ruled [which I will call "The Dawkens criteria"] that an English court could declare the expulsion of a member from a private club as unlawful if:

• the club had not acted in accordance with its own rules; or
• those rules themselves did not comply with the requirements of natural justice; or
• the club’s conduct, though within the four corners of the rules properly interpreted, could nonetheless be described as mala fide (in bad faith).

• Under the Law of Florida, a person whose livelihood depends on membership of a private club has the right to demand that the "Dawkens criteria" be applied if he be suspended or expelled from such a club. However, in the case of a social club, he can only seek redress from a court only if the club had failed to apply its own rules, had acted fraudulently or had acted in bad faith.

• Under the law of California, a person whose interests are adversely affected has the right to demand that the "Dawkens criteria" be applied. The law is silent as to exact meaning of the phrase "adversely affect the interests of a member".

From this we see that Florida requires that good faith be applied, but does not require that "natural justice" be applied. Californian law is vague as the scope of the word "interests" (and I do not intend risking thousands of dollars taking the WMF to court to find out!). This tells me that

• I was possibly wrong in demanding that the process of "natural justice" be followed.
• I can expect Wikipedia to follow the "good faith" criteria.
• I can expect Wikipedia to take steps to prevent fraud (which include "vote stacking").

Wikipedia's situation

The Wikipedia rules in WP:CANVASS ban inappropriate canvassing. Inappropriate canvassing is both a breach of "good faith" and since it is tantamount to "vote rigging", it constitutes a form of "fraud". A process is in place for warning and ultimately banning editors who flout WP:CANVASS, but there is no formal policy document to define a process to make good the damage caused by a single instance of canvassing.

The essay WP:FALSECON states:

"Administrators who become aware of any such manipulation [Canvassing] should immediately disregard any such consensus, and initiate a new process barring those who participated in any such improper activity."

During the course of the ANI, at least three administrators became aware of Wee Curry Monster's canvassing, but all dismissed it.

The essay goes on to say:

"Actions taken which treated any tainted consensus as proper may be discounted by ArbCom or by other administrators."

In my view WP:FALSECON rightly advocates immediate action without warning to the offending editor – the damage has already been done. WP:FALSECON only deals with an article or page that is affected by inappropriate canvassing, it does not deal with sanctions against the offending editor. Given the weight placed on "bad faith" and "fraud" by the Florida judiciary, I submit that the proposals made in the essay WP:FALSECON should be taken seriously.

Appendix B - DeFacto

My running battle with DeFacto sockpuppets played a contributory role in the sanctions that were made against me. It is therefore appropriate to provide a background to his activities. In March 2012 DeFacto was banned from Wikipedia and also from editing his own home page after an acrimonious battle in which the article Metrication in the United Kingdom featured prominently. He has since launched many Sockpuppets. The modus operandi that he has developed is to work from a device that uses a new IP address every time that he logs on and to create a new sockpuppet for each "mission". He then makes any changes that he desires and, in violation of WP:BRD, refuses to enter into any dialogue unless his new version of the text is the current version. When the "mission" is complete, the sockpuppet is discarded. This approach has succeeded in confusing the Check User utility and is very tedious to fight.

Sockpuppets that are of interest in this appeal are:

• EzEdit on EN who concentrated on sabotaging the article EN:Imperial and US customary measurement systems, an article of which I was the principal editor and which was written to fill a gap in the list of 1000 Vital Articles. It took three attemtps before EzEdit was confirmed as a sockpuppet of DeFacto:

• An SPI against EzEdit on 31 July 2013 failed on grounds of being inconclusive.

• An SPA that I launched at 17:37 on 25 October 2013 was disallowed on grounds that it breached my topic ban.. This incident will be referred to later.
• EzEdit continued to cause trouble until a second SPI posted by User:Michael Glass on 31 October 2013 unmasked him.

• Centaur on SIMPLE who concentrated on sabotaging my attempt to promote the article SIMPLE:Metric system as a good article. This incident will be referred to later.

DeFacto's continuing attacks on me were well-known to many editors, escpecially to Wee Curry Monster.

• Topic ban imposed by TParis – The underlying cause of this topic ban was:

• Claims by User:Wee Curry Monster which, in my view, showed both bad faith and deceit. The degree of this bad faith and deceit only became apparent after the sanctions were placed against me.
• Canvassing by Wee Curry Monster. When requesting help from administrators, I had not seen the essay WP:FALSECONSENSUS. Had the views expressed therein been heeded, the matter would have been closed immediately.
• Failure of Administrators User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:GiantSnowman to see the big picture. Instead they wikilawyerd on behalf of Wee Curry Monster's canvassing and when challenged, EatsShootsAndLeaves in particular made a number of really stupid comments to justify his actions. His comments, when seen in perspective with simlar comments that he made in justifying his block of the Nobel prize laureate User:Brian Josephson left me doubting his ability to ever see the big picture.
• Error of judgement on the part of User:TParis who reacted over-hastily to a deceitful posting by User:Wee Curry Monster alleging that I was again "edit warring". By placing a topic ban on me, User:TParis' actions created a "blue-on-blue incident".

• Indefinite block imposed by User:Drmies – Before placing this block, Drmies considerd the views of four other editors. I believe that Drmies placed undue reliance on the views of administrators User:GiantSnowman and User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, both of whom compromised their position by failing to deal with Wee Curry Monster's canvassing. As a result she was given a completely false picture of the situation.

• Topic ban and indefinite block on Simple Wikipedia – These were resulted from the same WP:ONESTRIKE reciprocal arangement between EN and SIMPLE which occurred when User:DeFacto sent a suicide sockpuppet to disrupt my work with a brazen disregard for the WP:BRD principle. Removal of the sanctions on EN Wikipedia will remove the rationale behind the sanctions on SIMPLE.

As a result of a heated argument with User:EatsdShootsAndLeaves I have looked up the actual legal position. My findings are:

• Action by Wikipedia against editors is in certain circumstances constrained by law
• The essay WP:FALSECONSENSUS should be taken seriously.

In the final part of my appeal I present a number of Mitigating facts. These include

• Cataloging WP:Good Articles with I have promoted.
• Work that I have done on other language Wikipedias.
• Training sessions in which I have assisted.

Topic ban on English Wikipedia

• Bad faith actions by User:Wee Curry Monster who, knowing that I had views that were contrary to his, tried to get me out of the way before launching this RFC:

• He supported a ANI attempt by User:Kahastok to have me banned.
• He created an incident in order elicit a response from me.
• He misrepresented a totally reasonable response to the incident that he created to launch an ANI against me.
• Contrary to WP:CANVASS, he solicited support against me for the ANI.
• He misrepresented an attempt by me to expose another editor as a sockpuppet as edit-warring.
• Days after I was topic banned, he launched the RFC which he was planning to do.

• Wikilawyering by Administrators User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:GiantSnowman on behalf of Wee Curry Monster's canvassing. (Contrary to the essay WP:FALSECONSENSUS).

The topic ban on me resulted from a complaint made by Wee Curry Monster on ANI against me.. Immediately on proposing the ANI, Wee Curry Monster (the proposer) drew the attention of the ANI to three other editors. After I formally warned Wee Curry Monster about canvassing, I requested that the closing administrator declare the ANI null and void.. The closing administrator took no action, neither did two other administrators who took part in the ANI and associated activities. The arguments ranged into the legal aspects with certain administrators holding out that since Wikipedia was a private website, it fell outside the control of any legal authorities. Subsequent to my topic ban and indefinite block, I researched the matter and found that in Florida the courts can intervene in cases where the club breaks its own rule and also in cases where fraud and/or malice are present. I will now show that Wee Curry Minster breached all threee criteria and that administrators User:GiantSnowman, User:EatsShootsAndLeaves and User:TParis exercised poor judgement in handling the various issues.

Wee Curry Monster’s previous actions against me personally including WP:BULLYING and his subsequent of opening an RFC three days after I was blocked on a topic in which I had openly opposed him in the past suggests malice on his part.

During the course of the ANI I was involved in a series of accusations and counter-accusations that derived from Wee Curry Monster’s canvassing. In particular, I argued:

• That under WP:CANVASSING Wee Curry Monster’s canvassing was a just cause to have the ANI dismissed.
• That it was up to the administrators, not the community to assess the impact of WCM’s canvassing.

In the course of that argument I should have realised that "where ignorance is bliss, it is foolish to be wise" and I should have sought an argument that others could understand. The argument, had I looked more carefully, was laid out in WP:FALSECON – it backed up my first point (remedies against the damage caused to an discussion by canvassing) in clear and unambiguous language - WP:CANVASSING deals with actions against an editor who persists in canvassing.

User:Wee Curry Monster

ererer

Indefinite block on English Wikipedia

Ipso Factum

Drmies

In making her indefinite block, Drmies relied on the advice of four editors. Two of those editors were administrators and therefore the ones whose advice Drmies would most greatly value. Unfortunately these two were GiantSnowman and EatsShootsAndLeaves whose own mishandling of the canvassing issue totally compromised their statements. As such Drmies’ subsequent actions should be viewed with caution.