Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Edit this section for new requests

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User requesting enforcement

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Jaakobou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Purpose_of_Wikipedia

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

Jaakabou seems to be engaged in advocacy on behalf of Israel, rather than in editing as a Wikipedian. He insults and removes reliable sources because he disagrees with them, and removes well-supported material because he doesn't like it.

• At Exodus from Lydda, an article about the Israeli invasion of Lydda and Ramla in 1948, he has argued that Ilan Pappe, professor of history at the University of Exeter, and the author of eight books on the Middle East, cannot be used as a source. This is because Pappe makes it clear that he is pro-Palestinian, and he has supported an academic boycott against Israel. Obviously, this does not affect Pappe's status as a source under the policy, but Jaakabou insists that it does. See Talk:Exodus_from_Lydda#Anti-Zionist_activist. A discussion at the RS noticeboard subsequently confirmed Pappe as a reliable source.
  • Comments:
  • SlimVirgin forgot to mention that my objection notes included Pappe giving honors to a thesis -- over a never-before-heard Zionist "massacre" in Tantura -- which was overturned (being given a failing grade) by his fellow of peers (this was also brought into court under a libel charge in which the thesis writer lost the case). Also among my arguments, was that Pappe claims -- based on debunked rumors -- that Israel and the USA conspired to hide a massacre in the Battle of Jenin where final death tolls (approved by the Palestinians) were 56 Palestinians and 23 Israeli soldiers. Massacre claims were mostly rejected/dropped by all the mainstream media and the conspiracy claims are left for conspiracy theorists and hardcore anti-Zioniosts. The claim makes as much sense as that of those who claim Israel and the USA were behind the 9.11 attacks. WP:COMMON would have us be very careful on using him as a source just on that.
  • Also, I never rejected the use of Pappe as a representative of anti-Zionists since I do believe that he is quite notable among them being a leader of the "Boycott Israeli Academics" movement. A number of editors on the RSN suggested he is indeed notable but should be given if used an informative descriptive when/if used. A good number of these editors also stated that he's WP:RS but that they would never use him for historical accounts. This fits perfectly with my suggestion that he should not be used when there are more reliable sources like Benny Morris or other less controversial scholars.

    "it probably makes sense to provide readers who (like me) have never heard of the guy with some immediately useful context"[1] - MastCell

    "Since Pappé's notability is not in doubt, any pronouncements of his that have received independent coverage can go in WP articles, but I would never use him as a sole, or principal, source on history."[2] - User:Goodmorningworld

  • I'm sorry for bringing this up like this, but I feel as though trying to have me sanctioned for discussing these issues is a violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Decorum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [3] former assistant professor of political science at DePaul University, and the author of several books on the Middle East and Zionism, who is also pro-Palestinian.
  • I assumed there would be a serious discussion about Ilan Pappe and opened that discussion myself.[4] I never expected, however, a similar level of support (other than Nishidani) for Norman Finkelstein, a Hezbollah supporter, among other things, who's been accused for taking sides with the pro-Syrian camp and misrepresenting the Israeli-Arab situation by Lebanese people.[5] He's also been widely criticized for shoddy scholarship.[6][7] Anyways, it's not like I edit-warred him out (I think I removed him only once..) and he's still not on the page anymore so apparently, there's no consensus for keeping him in there. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here he adds a POV tag to the entire article, [8] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too.
  • This statement is patently incorrect. I clearly stated the reasons for the POV tag only that SlimVirign wasn't paying attention. Finkelstien had almost nothing to do with the tag. It was that "the article is written quite un-conservatively and in an accusatory fashion. ... I can't see this article lasting long term with a first paragraph that accuses Rabin of "gun-pointing" people out of their homes."[9] I also expanded on this and received support from both User:Ceedjee ([10])as well as User:Jalapenos do exist ([11]) for some of my raised concerns. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here he removes Sandy Tolan, [12] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian.
  • Seemed redundant as better sources were used. You won't see me adding CAMERA or HonestReporting links to citations that already have more neutral and scholarly (reliable) sources. If there's a special value with adding that article, I'd be interested in hearing it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [13] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP.
  • This is somewhat of a true error on my part. I take this note to heart and will attempt to improve on it. Basically, when a person claims Holocaust survivors are lying or that the Holocaust is exaggerated, I tend -- as a descendant of Holocaust survivors -- to take it a bit personally and use the "denial" term though a better word would have been "minimizer" or something similar (probably best to avoid harsh descriptives completely). One of the issues that pains me with Finkelstien as well as his "scholarly" work is that he promotes antisemitic art on his website[14] -- some less subtle samples (indisputably problematic) [15][16] -- and supports the clearly antisemitic group Hezbollah.[17] My statement should have been sticking to sourced references but, in my defense, the "destructiveness" level of my note is nowhere near the harm that is caused by promoting his use as if he were a mainstream source. As stated, I will take more caution about discussing the value of Finkelstien as a source for "massacre" stories about Israel. Still, this could have been easily addressed and SlimVirgin still hasn't made any argument to why he must be used to support other, better sources. Side note: I made a concentrated effort to resolve the issues by civil discussion so the removal of Finkelstien seems to have occurred due to some type of consensus that agreed with me. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here he removes from the lead the number of Palestinians expelled from Lydda and Ramla, [18] even though the number (up to 70,000) is central to why this is an important historical event: these expulsions accounted for around 1/10th of the total 1948 Palestinian exodus.
  • As with my notes on the talkpage, I wanted to bring the introduction to be a tad more conservative and in a similar structure to other existing articles such as Hama massacre or the Black September in Jordan articles. The given diff makes for a pretty obvious misrepresentation of previous diffs (I assume SlimVirgin missed it). Anyways, just 6 diffs prior to that I fixed the lead so that the numbers are related with the "one-tenth" of the "Nakba" paragraph.[19] I certainly did not remove the numbers at no point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Here he three times removes from the lead that Palestinians were shot for refusing to hand over their valuables, calling it "emotional overtones," [20] [21] inserting it instead into the fourth section from the end as though it's an afterthought. [22] The treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli soldiers is a central issue in the story of what happened at Lydda: even staunchly pro-Israeli sources agree that there was looting, assault, and indiscriminate killing.
  • Since when do we have "though eyewitnesses also said" in lead paragraphs? I have no objections about mentioning the grisly military treatment of the people but it should be presented, at least in the lead, in an encyclopedic manner and not as a trivia note. What is worse for the project - adding these type of notes to lead sections or moving them into the body of the article? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

see above and below

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

This is a request that the ArbCom, or admins, consider some form of topic ban from Israel-Palestine articles.

He has already been sanctioned twice under the ArbCom case; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

• Jaakobou (talk · contribs) is banned from Palestine-Israel articles for a week for disruptive talk page conduct. Addhoc (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Jaakobou (talk · contribs) blocked for one week by FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protects · deletions · moves · rights) - Details -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 14:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the above, he has been blocked five times in relation to the I/P conflict. [23]

Additional comments

There is little scholarly disagreement about Exodus from Lydda: all academic sources that I can find (pro- and anti-Israel, and neither) agree that Israel invaded the city in July 1948, expelled tens of thousands of Palestinians (up to 70,000); killed 250 during the invasion; that there was extensive Israeli looting of the city; and that there were Palestinian deaths on the march out of it (up to 350), mostly because of the heat and lack of water, and in part because people were shot. Much of the source material comes from the Israel Defense Forces themselves.

Despite the agreement of the sources, it remains difficult to do any decent work there, in large measure because of Jaakabou. Time that could be spent adding content is spent instead trying to defend common sense edits.

• Comment: I'm not following this sentence. Did I reject any clear cut consensus once one was formed? If I have, I'd appreciate a diff that supports this suggestion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

Discussion concerning Jaakobou

He's previously been blocked for a week, however that was a year ago, so another week? PhilKnight (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he could be given a chance to reply before automatic punishments are handed down. IronDuke 22:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with whatever admins decide, Phil. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note: Please amend this request so that it links to the final decision, not to a proposed decision.  Sandstein  22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that SlimVirgin is asking for administrative, and arbcom assistance, in resolving the articles editorial problems. And there certainly are editorial problems. For instance, although SlimVirgin claims there is academic agreement on the subject, but the lead sentence is still sourced to a very non-neutral Al Jazeera article [25]. Seeing that there is a perfectly good academic source, I asked the problematic led source be removed, two days ago, but this has been ignored. Of course that is not the only problem, and the editing situation is much more complex than SlimVirgin has indicated.

Also, it is unclear why SlimVirgin has chosen to focus on Jaakobou, because it appears to me that he has not done that much actual editing of the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have focused on Jaakabou because a high percentage of his interventions are unhelpful, and because this has been a problem with his editing for quite some time at several other articles. For example, removing the number of Palestinians who were expelled from the lead, when that is the central issue, is not reasonable editing by any standard. Trying to have Pappe banned as a source, though he has a PhD from Oxford, a professional chair at Exeter, and eight books on the subject to his name. It's tiresome advocacy. All reasonable people not involved in it want this kind of thing to stop at the I/P articles, no matter which side is doing it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If opining that Pappe is unreliable source is blockable, there a number of other editors that can be blocked as well, including myself. And once we're at it, we can block Benny Morris and a number of other I-P scholars from opening WP accounts. They, after all, are also of the opinion that Pappe is unreliable. I hope I'm wrong, but it seems like Slim Virgin is just trying to remove editors that don't agree with some of her POV determinations. A discussion about an editor in which there is not even an actionable claim, sets a terrible precedent. Is every editor with a block history at risk of being dragged to the AE board for having a number of disagreements, sans any claim of incivility and edit-warring?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking through the edits linked to in the request, I tend to agree with Brewcrewer. Discretionary sanctions are intended to address severe conduct problems, not mere content disagreements, which is what this request seems to be mainly about. Content issues can become sanctionable when they rise to the level of disruptive persistent ideological POV-pushing, as described in WP:PLAGUE, but the reported edits do not convince me that we are at that level here. The only edit problematic from a conduct perspective is [26], which violates WP:BLP by accusing a living person of Holocaust denial without providing very good sources for this assertion, and I strongly advise Jaakabou not to do this again or he may indeed be made subject to sanctions.  Sandstein  05:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakabou's edit was on a talk page, and in a context where a source would not usually be deemed necessary. The accusations that this individual is a Holocaust denier are rather wide spread, and sources are not hard to find [27][28]. In other words, this is not the product of Jaakabou's imagination, but a widely held, and frequently stated, view by one side in the ongoing I/P debates. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Smears abound, and one can google fish for anything on your desired menu of derogatory innuendoes. You are confusing a possible edit one might make to Finkelstein's page about holocaust denial (untrue, but a minority view, even if just a smear), with a specific question of WP:RS on a page that has nothing to do with Finkelstein. To use an extremist and unproven smear against an author in order to remove him from a page where he is cited as a source shows extreme confusion in what editing is about.Nishidani (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Sandstein is correct that I should link more often to sources when using strong words. In my defense I do use links quite often but these discussions prolonged and many comments were made and perhaps I allowed myself to link less often than I should have been linking.

As to the complaint, I have respect for SlimVirgin but I feel as though bad faith suggestions, perhaps culminating with this bid for my sanctioning, are a bit of an issue with her demeanor.[29][30][31][32] Nontheless, this is a regular content dispute and I'd be happy to work with her on talk as long as she doesn't misrepresent the reasons to which I posted an NPOV tag on the page. I believe my notes on the talk page are fairly clear that there's more than Finkelstien in concern,[33] and User:Ceedjee ([34]) as well as User:Jalapenos do exist ([35]) both agreed with some of the concerns I've raised.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm a tad offended by SlimVirgin's claims that "a high percentage of his interventions are unhelpful" (23:34, 7 May 2009). A sample of editors who feel differently can be found here (I also invite people to explore my "Images I've had the privilege of adding to the encyclopedia" section above it. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a content dispute to me, and frankly I'm surprised that SlimVirgin, of all people, would bring it up on WP:AE. Please try to settle the issue on talk first. There has not nearly been enough discussion there, and I encourage both editors to show mutual respect and restraint—while I'm personally not involved in this article, it's a Bounty Board article and it is in Wikipedia's best interest as a whole that as many good editors contribute to this article. Both Jaakobou and SlimVirgin are good editors and can do a lot to advance it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's also surprising that, as Jaakobou's mentor, I was neither contacted in advance regarding the concerns nor notified by SlimVirgin when the actual thread went up. Especially odd because at the same time she was aggressively seeking my opinion on a related matter and repeating her queries despite very clear feedback that I didn't want to engage in the other matter. Rather than seeking punitive action, please engage me where I have an actual role. Jaakobou has responded well to feedback in the past. I freely admit that my understanding of the subject matter is limited--yet we are both willing to engage in productive dialog, and to accept useful feedback. Durova^Charge! 17:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of timeconsuming dialogue could be avoided by a little commonsense that, in this case, would tell any experienced editor that raising lengthy queries about non-issues, like Finkelstein and Pappé as reliable sources on I/P articles, is unproductive.Nishidani (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou comes to me when he perceives a problem. Together we generally resolve those problems with much less time consuming dialog than an arbitration enforcement request entails. Am open to similar requests from others. Please be understanding about the limits of my familiarity with the subject: some familiarity with Finkelstein but ignorant regarding Pappé. Durova^Charge! 18:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record: I'm looking into this complaint, and intend to deliver a full response within the next day or two. AGK 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that Exodus from Lydda has been subjected to what Nishiban'i has elsewhere called "swarming," where a group of editors on one side arrived to find fault with the article in any way they could, including wanting to redirect it, to the point where the original author, User:Tiamut, left Wikipedia.

This is the third time there has been an effort to create an article about the expulsion of the Palestinians from Lydda, which is an important topic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lydda massacre was redirected in 2005 to Lydda and Ramle during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, which in turn was redirected in 2007 to Operation Danny, but without the content being merged. [36] So basically, it just disappeared. Now that Tiamut has started an article again, decent sources are being removed; tags added; redirect suggestions made; crucial material being removed from the lead or entirely; that Palestinians were shot for their valuables removed as "emotional overtones." [37]

It's unacceptable editing, and Jakkobou, who has been warned many times before about this kind of thing, is the primary instigator of it. That is why I brought the issue here, to use the existing dispute resolution process, and the relevant ArbCom ruling, instead of trying to deal with it on the talk page. I wonder what the point of the ArbCom rulings is if the same behaviour is allowed to continue. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, what you find unacceptable about Jaakobou's editing is that he has been an obstacle to your editing goals for the article, and Tiamut had the same objection before you. But editing is supposed to involve some willingness compromise. That is how editors create articles that are NPOV. Since I see nothing in your accusations that substantiate that Jaakobou added unsourced content, the problem may be just a disinclination to compromise.

As for the charge of "swarming", that might indicate that you are refusing WP:AGF. As far I can see, Jaakobou has always assumed you were making good faith edits, even while disagreeing with some of your edits. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I won't apply a sanction unless there is a consensus among uninvolved admins, however I tend to agree with SV here. The purpose of the WP:ARBPIA restrictions was to prevent this sort of disruption. PhilKnight (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no 'disruption' here - as has been noted by uninvolved admins. There is a content dispute, which is being hashed out on the article's talk page. I must agree with Brewcrewer here, that seems more like an attempt to silence opposing editors through the use of blocks. NoCal100 (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It may be that SlimVirgin and some other editors on one side of the issue, find it upsetting that their editing goals for an article are not succeeding to the extent that they wish. But I am having a hard time understanding why making edits SlimVirgin does not like is being called disruptive. To me that sounds very close to conceding ownership of the article to SlimVirgin. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Of SlimVirgin's links and diffs, only one goes to an edit by Jaakobou. From this relatively naive position that seems like a matter that belongs in discussion at article talk. The redirect with information lost, etc. was done by other editors. Why would Jaakobou be held responsible for their actions? Durova^Charge! 02:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

All the links above go to him. Please read the first report at the top. I see that two uninvolved admins are looking at the case, so it's probably best to leave it to one of them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all of the links provided in SlimVirgin's evidence go to edits by Jaakobou. AGK 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• NB, While this complaint -- initiated by SlimVirgin -- is still in process, she and Ceedjee have resorted to edit warring to remove sourced content that does not fit their own model of the article. In my view, the intent of SlimVirgin's complaint is to remove an effective editor who does not accept her ownership (ie WP:OWN) of the article. There was talk page discussion in process, and SlimVirgin decided to impose her own version regardless of the fact that differences are unresolved on the talk page. [38][39]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin: In your edit summary attached to the change Malcolm linked to, you stated you changed the wording from battle to conquest "per talk." To a casual reader, that would suggest that you had garnered consensus for your edit—when, in fact, I can only see one user, Ceedjee, assenting to the change (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=288882963#Battle). AGK 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I think it should be implicit in my talk page remarks (I don't edit there as I shall be permabanned quite shortly) that I accept, as a previous editor, the correctness of both SlimVirgin and Ceedjee's positions on this and much else, though my POV is the opposite of theirs. Both of them master the most pertinent uptodate academic and historical sources before editing. Three of the most relevant books, as opposed to googled information, are those of Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, David Tal all dealing precisely with the events of the war of 1948. Morris actually denies that 'battle' is an appropriate word for the incident, Yoav Gelber does not use the word, and, offhand, I can't recall Tal doing so either. All three use the word 'conquest' in referring to events at Lydda from the 10th to the 12th of July.
• David Tal twice on pp.235, 304 of his War in Palestine, 1948: strategy and diplomacy, Routledge, 2004 writes twice of the 'conquest' of Lydda-Ramle pp.235,304
• Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948: war, escape and the emergence of the Palestinian refugee problem, Sussex Academic Press, 2006 speaks of the ‘conquest of Lydda airport’ on the day preceding the taking of the city.p.159
• Benny Morris, The Road to Jerusalem: Glubb Pasha, Palestine and the Jews, I.B.Tauris, 2003 speaks of the 'easy conquest of Lydda', p.175

The conflict is between those who privilege the use of quality sources, their language and data, and many who appear to adduce just any source that backs their personal views and opinions. The article has an FA ambition and a financial bounty for wikipedia attached to it, hence the insistance of those editors who have done 95% of the text that one exploit only the best qualit historical information for drafting it. Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussaion [40] is not settled, very much in process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion captures what it's like to edit on the I/P articles. Malcolm wants the lead to say that 250 Palestinians and four Israelis were killed during the "battle" to take the city. But that is false, and he wasn't able to provide a source, but expects us to talk about it endlessly and never fix the error.

In fact, most of those killed died after the "battle" (if you want to call it that) to take control of the city. The next day, according to the scholarly sources, there was at least one instance of unarmed civilians being shot in the street (a "massacre," as some of the neutral academic sources call it); and possibly a second one in a mosque (the sources are divided on the details of the mosque killings). Therefore, to make the sentence accurate, and to avoid using POV language, Ceedjee and I suggested "during the invasion of Lydda," "during the fall of Lydda," or "during the conquest of Lydda." You may take your pick, Malcolm, or suggest something else, but that 250 people were killed during a "battle" is just plain false. We don't add false and unsourced material to articles no matter how many editors want to do it: see WP:V.

I'm not going to post here again unless asked to by an admin. I've posted my request, and I'm fine with accepting whatever decision is made. If you want to discuss the Lydda article, please do so there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, one final point. I should make clear that the lead originally said 250 people were killed during the "invasion of Lydda," and was changed without a source to "battle" by Malcolm or one of the other editors who supports him. It is not Ceedjee and I who are changing it; we are trying to restore the sentence to be consistent with the sources.

Also, Malcolm was supportive of Jaakobou in wanting to remove from the lead the number of Palestinians who were expelled from the Lydda and Ramla (up to 70,000), even though this is a key point, which should be in the lead both as a matter of common sense and of WP:LEAD. Here Malcolm reverts to Jaakobou's version after Nishidani restored the figures. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It is reasonable to describe the taking of the city as a battle because there was a fight between two sides and a source says the was a battle. But, more importantly, SlimVirgin decide she did not need to discuss the issue any further on the talk page, and changed the content to what she wanted. I see the problem as WP:OWN. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, her claim that I did not supply a source is a lie. I do not add content without sources [41], and was certainly in the now deleted version of article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That source does not say that 250 Palestinians were killed during a battle. It says only that there was a battle. This has been pointed out to you several times on talk. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The source described what happened as a battle, and the discussion focused in "battle" was the correct word. At no point did I object to your changing the numbers, although it is difficult to understand why you think saying that "250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the conquest of Lydda" is correct numbers, but saying "250 Palestinians and up to four Israeli soldiers were killed during the battle of Lydda" is incorrect numbers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my reply being in segments, but I am trying to get real world work done at the same time as this. Please note: SlimVirgin's claim that the number of Palestinians expelled (50,000-70,000 Palestinians) was removed from the lead is (once again) a lie. If you look at the link she gave and scroll down far enough in the lead of that version, you will see that the numbers are still in the lead still, but just once instead of twice as previously. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Could both of you please discuss your content disagreements on the article talk page, not here? I've protected Exodus from Lydda for three days to stop the low-level multiparty editwar that is going on there. I still don't think the original request is actionable, but should the edit war resume, I'll consider banning every involved editor from editing the article.  Sandstein  17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I echo Sandstein's comment on the edit war—and would implore (in vein, I'm sure) all involved parties to take a step back from the article and let things cool off. However, I'm of two minds as to whether the original complaint—that some of Jaak's changes to Wikipedia articles are being made for reasons other than a genuine desire to improve the project; and I'd draw attention to a few points:

At Exodus from Lydda, an article about the Israeli invasion of Lydda and Ramla in 1948, he has argued that Ilan Pappe, professor of history at the University of Exeter, and the author of eight books on the Middle East, cannot be used as a source. This is because Pappe makes it clear that he is pro-Palestinian, and he has supported an academic boycott against Israel. Obviously, this does not affect Pappe's status as a source under the policy, but Jaakabou insists that it does. See Talk:Exodus_from_Lydda#Anti-Zionist_activist. A discussion at the RS noticeboard subsequently confirmed Pappe as a reliable source. Actually, Jaakabou argued that he cannot be used as a source because his writings were based on inaccurate sources: A review body of academic peers overturned Pappe and deemed the "massacre" thesis by Katz (Pappe's student) to be based on bogus information after the supreme court looked at the evidence and decided that the soldiers were right in posting a libel suit (Kats was forced to apologize as well if I understood the sources correctly). —http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?oldid=288707956#Is_Ilan_Pappe_a_reliable_source.3F. Jaakabou did not oppose the source simply because he was pro-Palestinian. Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [42] former assistant professor of political science at DePaul University, and the author of several books on the Middle East and Zionism, who is also pro-Palestinian. There seems to be a genuine difference in opinion between the editors contributing to this article over whether Finkelstein is a reliable source. However, we can establish that J. is set against Finkelstein, based on his comment in this discussion: "He's been hailed by antisemitic bodies and organizations for "proving" the holocaust is fake... one of the things he's done was to claim holocaust survivors were lying (nice!)". When this is considered against J's removal of Finkelstein as a source, the reasons that he is editing can begin to be questioned: is he removing the source because he thinks F. to be unreliable, or because he is personally set against him?*Here # He adds a POV tag to the entire article, [43] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too. Ditto the second point: is J. adding this tag because he is part of the group of editors who thinks F. is an unreliable source—or because he opposes him? He removes Sandy Tolan, [44] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian. There is no conclusive evidence that he removed the source because it was published by a pro-Palestine media agency. As an administrator, I'm not a judge of content—and, additionally, I hold little personal knowledge of this subject area; as such, I'm not in a position to effectively evaluate whether the removal of the source would only be because it is pro-Palestine; there could be a myriad of other reasons for the removal. J.'s edit is, nevertheless, somewhat worrying. Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [45] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP. I'm unsure whether "Holocaust denial" is an exaggeration that is nevertheless based on some modicum of fact or is a false statement. Furthermore, the statement was made outwith the article space, and thus didn't constitute the direct insertion of biased material into the article; as such, I couldn't take this into account to any great degree when deciding whether to place sanctions against J.

Due to the divisive, often harmful nature of the presence of many editors, I'm minded to hand out bans to several contributors to the Exodus from Lydda article; that's the only realistic approach I can think of to dissolving the lack of cohesion amongst the group of editors contributing to the page.

AGK 17:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr: Since no arbitration remedy is being cited here, shouldn't this go somewhere else? AE is for summary judgment by and large, community remedies come by accident.--Tznkai (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a mistake to try to resolve an editing dispute here, and taking it to AN/I would only compound the original mistake. My own view is that previously the editing of this article was difficult, but the general editing atmosphere was far better than the situation for most I/P articles. About all bringing an unfair accusation to this noticeboard has accomplished is to poison that atmosphere. Not much of an accomplishment. But my guess is that it will wind up going to AN/I anyhow. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

A solution can come out of this discussion. Moving the discussion elsewhere, for the sake of procedure, would be unhelpful. Please don't take it somewhere else; we're trying to nudge this article towards a state where disputes are actually just helpful differences in editorial opinion. AGK 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Jaakobou

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

ScienceApologist

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

Process note: Please don't archive this one just yet, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 00:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning ScienceApologist

User requesting enforcement

-- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

User is banned for a period of three months, yet continues to make edits "anonymously" through an IP address (128.59.171.155).

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Indef block.

Additional comments

This IP address seems highly likely to be ScienceApologist based on the following correlating evidence: [54] [55] [56]. That said, perhaps a CheckUser is at least in order.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning ScienceApologist

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Further_motions_following_Request_for_Clarification this ruling is pertinent] — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a checkuser is required, the evidence is compelling that this is SA. Kevin (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, I've just become aware of this thread (as his mentor it would have been nice to have gotten a heads up). Have emailed ScienceApologist and am seeking a checkuser. No word yet; this is the first it's come to my attention. Durova^Charge! 03:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• (Sarcasm alert): Yes, the evidence is indeed compelling, since SA is [REDACT]...NOT. Oddly enough, the IP has not been notified, but SA has received the notification. Whatever.... Maybe it is him (probably), and maybe it's not. Is there any more compelling evidence? If not, this may be enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is not the only evidence - this edit shows the IP signing as SA, on a page where SA would likely deal with it if it were someone else. Kevin (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

...but if he's already blocked, how would SA deal with it if it were someone else? CU may be in order, but AGF here, folks. It could well be someone trying to pull a JoeJob to make us think it's SA. rdfox 76 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The edits are at Wikisource, where SA is not blocked. Kevin (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

You're looking at additional comments rather than the diffs. Look a couple lines up. We're talking about Wikipedia edits. II | (t - c) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• CU isn't going to tell us anything that we don't already know ([REDACT]), so I don't know why it would be necessary. The only edits which are worth being annoyed about are the last few on Quackwatch. Then again, a couple of these use improper capitalization which might suggest it's not SA, since he seems to understand proper English (although it is a quote, so it might have confused him). Plus the edit adds a bunch of rambling text, which isn't typical of SA. Anyway, seems hard to be sure that it is SA, even though the edits are to articles which he edits and come from his IP address. The edits aren't really disruptive or awfully characteristic of him so I'd be inclined to let it go. Err on the side of good faith and all that. II | (t - c) 07:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think we do need checkuser here, although it's not clear that the additional information will settle this case. We are talking about a dynamic IP [REDACT] I think there are obvious problems with the duck test in such high-profile cases, so we should be careful with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified the IP of this discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Could we please stop bandying about irrelevant real life information? We have and need the IP and information related to it, that should be all that is necessary. It has been a while since I stalked ScienceApologist, but I do not recall ever seeing French military history, country music BLPs, or Hannah Montana ever pop up. Redshift has certainly benefited from ScienceApolologist, but that edit to remove a See also did not raise any red flags when it passed through my WatchList the other week. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Two CU checks have been run on this and both said the results were very convincing. I was NOT one of those who ran the checks. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear in the public record, does it? Hipocrite (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can take Rlevse's word for it. Jehochman ^Talk 21:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Measure twice cut once? If a CU was run, the checkuser should verify that in a public location. Unless IRC is a place where wikipedia business can take place? Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I corroborate that a check was run by me, by request, and that I found it highly likely that the IP I was asked about is being used by SA. Hipocrite, your tone is not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Note: Since the case remains open, I am moving this section's content out of the "result" and into the "discussion" section.  Sandstein  05:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I am disappointed to see some of the regular pro-fringe advocates petitioning for sanctions against SA. This matter looks like something that belongs at WP:SPI, not here. Copy the evidence there, select code 'A', violation of arbitration sanctions, and let a Checkuser make a determination. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I have redacted some personal info that was not needed to be posted here. Please don't restore that. This matter should be handled by a Checkuser. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

As checkuser has been run, and block evasion has been found, the customary result is an upgrade to indef. Since SA is currently blocked, I think we should have a community discussion first to decide what to do, rather than jumping to indef and having a discussion afterwards. Talk first then use tools. Does anybody object to an indefinite block? Jehochman ^Talk 21:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think blocking the IP for the term of SA's block, or for 3 months (doing a "reset") would be a better approach. Unless we are ready to write SA off completely. Which I am not. Yet. ++Lar: t/c 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like the Solomonic solution. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Lar. Can you implement that? At minimum resetting the original block should be non-controversial. I remember last time you checked this. You're familiar with all the circumstances. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Could a decision please be put on hold for 48 hours while additional technical information is being verified? Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement

I'm Columbia College student majoring in astrophysics. I edit Wikipedia all across campus. I am not "ScienceApologist". The guy with the account asked me to explain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.171.155 (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have Checkuser access so I have no good way to double check their results. Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Rechecked. I get the same CU result I got last time: "Strong correlation to ScienceApologist". Certainly there are other possible explanations, and I would defer to "Pattern of editing analysis" as appropriate but that's what CU tells me. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't want to comment further until making contact with ScienceApologist. Am aware of the strength of the technical checkuser evidence; until reaching him directly I considered it almost certain that he had made these edits himself. In which case of course that would not be defensible. He tells me the disputed edits were not his; that they came from a departmental Internet connection to which many people have access. This is a large university. It stands to reason that most of that department shares the same interests and POV; they would likely touch similar articles no matter whether they knew he edited or not. The best he could do in the short time since we made contact was to locate the individual and ask for a disclosure. I have asked him to follow up with confirmatory information from the IT department etc. Suppose in good faith that he has abided by the terms of his siteban and this arose for reasons outside his control very late in the semester (the university ends its spring term early) and at the beginning of a weekend. In all likelihood, followup will occur via email with potentially sensitive information. The reasonable thing is to let the Committee weigh the evidence and see whether they believe the good faith scenario is plausible. May we close this thread procedurally? The Committee is certainly aware of this and interested. It is unlikely that ScienceApologist can supply much more substantiation during the weekend. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No comment on procedural closes. As for the rest, I'd want to hear from the IT department about their computer configuration before I was convinced it wasn't SA... but I suggest we block the range to anons, but not new account creations, for the duration of his ban, and just say, "sorry, there is disruptive editing coming from here, you will have to get an account" to any anon, and scrutinise new accounts created to see if they're editing problematically. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like a procedural close or pause on this. If we gain a better understanding of the IP in question, we should have everything we need to make a decision. As this is about an IP address, there are privacy issues, so anyone with any sound technical information about the IP should privately send it to Lar, or to the committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning ScienceApologist

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

Lar and ArbCom will deal with it. Privacy issues preclude further investigation by the community. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Was there a resolution to this? The IP user seems to be editing again and it would be useful to let the community if the user was cleared to prevent additional reports. Ronnotel (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. I've just nudged a few people... sorry for the delay. not quite sure what to do here. ++Lar: t/c 00:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh - not sure I quite understand the difficulty here. We have what appears to be ongoing sock-puppetry from a banned user that has been doubly checkuser-confirmed. Against this, we have a self-serving statement from an anonymous IP address. I would think policy would indicate that we block the IP and make the ban indefinite. If evidence is forthcoming that supports the anon IP then these administrative actions can be reversed. At this point, shouldn't the burden of proof be on the anon IP and the banned user? Ronnotel (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop lobbying. You don't, and can't, have full information. Leave it to the Checkusers to decide. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Matthead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning Matthead

User requesting enforcement

_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

[58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Repeated accusations against others (of edit warring and stalking) while edit warring himself. Bad faith towards other editors.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Matthead has already been placed under restriction and blocked for its violation at least once, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Enforcement.

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[64]

Discussion concerning Matthead

This seems to involve moderate editwarring between Matthead and Radeksz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I am notifying too. Is there a reason why a sanction, if any, should not apply to both? I'm considering a prohibition on both to revert each other's edits for some time.  Sandstein  08:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, succinctly, the reasons why sanctions should apply to Matthead and not myself are following: 1) I did not insult Matthead or make spurious accusations of stalking or editwarring against him. He's also called my edits "vandalism" when they were clearly not [65] for which he was reprimanded by another admin [66]. 2) Matthead has been creating POV-fork like articles (the existence of articles itself is legit, but they're written against consensus found on other, more major, articles). He also seems to have a sense of "ownership" [67] of certain articles and reverts any changes made to them. 3) Unlike Matthead, I have not been part of any arbitration case nor subject to any sanctions, specific or general (I believe he's under both). Furthermore he's been blocked several times for incivility, I have not, and this looks just like a continuation of the pattern. I will be happy to provide some more detail below, below Matthead's comment.radek (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz did engage in edit warring against me and others recently, to a degree which I do not consider moderate anymore, and I have accordingly chosen to call this spade a spade. First, I had expressed my concern without addressing a specific editor, see Talk:Battle_of_Grunwald#Editwarring and Radek responding to it. Later, more direct warnings had no effect on him either. See Battle of Grunwald [68][69][70][71], Duchy of Nysa [72] [73] Charge at Krojanty [74] Johann Haller [75] [76] [77] [78] De revolutionibus orbium coelestium [79] [80] Laurentius Corvinus [81] [82] Nicolaus Copernicus [83]. And thats just the articles I was involved in, apparently he had other quarrels going on elsewhere. Then things got even more ugly. Just minutes after I made an edit to articles he had never edited before (but which were on his "watchlist since time immemorial"), he showed up to revert: Treaty of Versailles [84] [85] Pszenno [86] [87]. And, coincidentally, another well known user showed up in that Silesian village article, just to revert me: [88], or to remove links to German biographies [89]. And, as so many times before, User:Piotrus (himself the subject of several (*) Arbcom cases, RfCs, restrictions including being placed on Digwuren formal notice) is jumping the bandwagon trying to take advantage of the battle grounds created by fellow Polish editors. Deja vu, this happened many times before. When will it end? -- Matthead  Discuß   11:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, yes I have been engaged in these articles and I have disagreed with your edits. But first, at no point did I refer to your edits, which I considered to be against Wiki policy, as "stalking" or "editwarring" or "vandalism". So a good part of this is just about civility and AFG, not just the pattern of edits. Second, please note that for most of your cited examples, your disagreement is not just with me but with other editors as well (though there is some anon that seems to follow you around and edit in a very similar way). For example my revert on Treaty of Versailles that you list above [90], was merely going along with the revert made by another user [91] (and honestly I have no idea who Gwinndeith is) - I'm not the only one that finds your edits on these articles objectionable.

A good bit of this started about two weeks ago when I wanted to work on the article on Copernicus' economic ideas (due to my background in economic history) and found that Monetae cudendae ratio had been written with a view to making sure that everyone knew that some early draft of the work was written in German, rather than the actual contents of the treatise itself (I've fixed it since). After that Matthead started popping up at a whole bunch of articles on my watchlist all of sudden. Furthermore, when you write or expand wiki articles, you look up other articles that you plan on wiki linking and often correct them as well. Recently Matthead tried to remove some sourced info from the Copernicus page and as a result I ended up creating three new articles [92], [93], [94]. But all these were related to the Watzenrode so I looked up Lucas Watzenrode and Pszenno (their hometown) in course of writing them. These two also had a "Copernicus was German" kind of stamp on them in a pov-forkish kind of way (contrasted with the complicated and multiethnic presentation of Copernicus ethnicity that has been agreed to by consensus in his main article). At the end of the day Matthead's accusation of "stalking and editwarring" boils down to an objection that a Polish editor has the temerity to edit articles on "German" individuals like Copernicus or "German" areas like Pszenno. At the very least it lacks AGF and after while becomes offensive and incivil.

(*) Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07_Polish_Cabal_and_myself_as_its_leader, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus-Ghirla, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus_2 (renamed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes).

Any evidence presented by Matthead should be reviewed very carefully; for example, his diff about me being placed on Digwuren's notice, for example, fails to mention that this was soon reverted by the same admin who did so in the first place: [95]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course it shouldn't; look at the sanction again. It is about creating battlegrounds by bad faith and personal attacks. Radek is not creating any battlegrounds, he is not being uncivil or assuming bad faith to Matthead; he is a victim of Matthead comments. In all of the articles the story is the same: Radek + OTHER EDITORS are being reverted by Matthead + IP, and Matthead is making personal attacks about Radek time and again (the IP involvement is what makes me particularly uneasy about the revert parole on both). Edit warring is not a major problem here, as nobody violates 3RR, bad faith in comments leading to creating edit summaries is, hence the specific remedy, which Matthead has been warned about and has violated at least once in the past, is not about edit warring, but about bad faith and so on. See also [96] and User_talk:Matthead/Archive2009#not_vandalism, where Matthead personal attacks accusing Radek of vandalism were spotted and commented upon by a neutral editor. Finally, this thread is about Matthead, not Radek; per recent AE reforms which specifically warned against turning discussions into "shoot the messanger" or "free-for-all", this is "Discussion concerning Matthead", and not about anyone else.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I will not try and sort out all the mutual accusations here, but while I am indeed more concerned about Matthead's conduct than about Radeksz's, due to the aggressive language employed by Matthead in his edit summaries, both have been edit-warring (which does not require a 3RR violation). I am not sure that this conflict warrants a formal arbitration enforcement action at this stage, but I strongly suggest that both editors voluntarily agree not to revert each other (WP:1RR) for at least six months. Should they prefer to continue editwarring instead, I am ready to issue topic bans or blocks for either or both of them without further warning. Piotrus, since you seem to be personally involved in Eastern Europe-related disputes, I think it would be advisable for you to disengage from this one.  Sandstein  11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, please keep in mind that I'm not the one who brought this up nor am I the person that's been subject to any kind of Arb restrictions, nor am I the one who's engaged in accusations and incivility. Having said that, I will be perfectly happy to stay away from Matthead, provided he does the same* (sorry, I got to asterisk that). But I also feel like I got to say a few things in my defense. Note that the edits presented above by Matthead do not constitute evidence of 'edit warring' as that is usually taken to mean. Basically, this is an issue of breadth rather than depth. As I already stated, after I edited one of Matthead's "own" articles he began showing up on articles on my watchlist. In all of my edits on disputed pages I have tried to make sure to not go over two reverts per day - the exceptions being the cases where the anon, who seems to follow Matthead around, was involved. Furthermore, Matthead isn't exactly the kind of editor who is willing to discuss things out on talk pages or articulate his position, for example see his comment here:[97]. Finally please keep in mind that this is an Arb enforcement issue, not an Admin Note/EW issue (which, if there is a problem, is the appropriate place to deal with it). I also hope that the fact that you are more concerned about Matthead's conduct implies practical differences and consequences.radek (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• - ok, here's the asterisk. I will be happy to not revert Matthead if he does the same thing in good faith. However, I understand this NOT to apply to the disruptive anon ips (for example, 71.137.197.103) that go around with Matthead. I wish this to be stated explicitly right now because a lot of these disputes basically originate with the anon inserting highly-POV material into an article, myself or other editors removing it and the Matthead restoring it for the anon and then defending it. Likewise, I've recently made a Proposal to Merge [98] on what is pretty obviously a POV fork and Matthead is probably going to be the main objector here. I hope my good faith willingness to stay away from him will not become an excuse to game the system.radek (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I would like to point out, again, this Arbitration Enforcement discussion is about Matthead, who is subject to a previous Arbitration ruling, not about Radek, who is not. So: is there enough evidence to merit AE action against Matthead or not? That's a simple question (and has nothing to do with Radek; if somebody wants to discuss Radek, they are welcome to start a separate thread on this board - but they will first need to find an Arbitration ruling involving him... :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of a voluntary mutual WP:1RR restriction between Matthead and Radek, for six months, as proposed by Sandstein. I suggest that these editors also agree not to use 'edit warring' in their edit summaries unless they plan to file a case at WP:AN3. I notice that Radek (above) agrees to most of this except he has a concern about IPs who make the same reverts as Matthead. If this happens in the future, he could request a temporary semi-protection (e.g. two weeks) at WP:RFPP, mentioning this discussion. If Radek and Matthead agree to this I trust they will both take the restriction seriously, because I assume that a block can be issued at AE, or even at WP:AN3, if they revert beyond the limit. EdJohnston (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, the suggestion about temp semi-protection is a good one. Additionally though I think there should be some kind of restriction on Matthead restoring anon IP's disruptive edits after other editor have reverted them which is sort of what starts a lot of this trouble in the first place. There should also, at the very least, be some kind of admonishment for lack of civility and mis-characterization of other's edits as "stalking" or "vandalism" - i.e. this Arb Enforcment should actually address the issue at hand, rather than other issues.radek (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

P.P. aka P.K., I would like to point out that when you file an AE, the discussion is going engage the different issues and the various people involved in it. It is going to concern the person who the complaint is lodged against, and the person who lodged the complaint. It is going to examine the complaint, everyone involved, and the possible motives for it being filed in the first place. This is partially why I've chosen to comment here. Not long ago you brought forth a similar effort to sanction me on similarly weak grounds. It came to no avail. You are constantly trying to censor, ban, block, and otherwise smear people that you disagree with in witch hunts and in an inquisition like fashion. Why would you suppose that if you bring up several "diffs" as the basis of your complaint, and they all involve Radeksz, that he would not be subject to this discussion? And I ask you that question, regardless of the fact that Radeksz has repeatedly and voluntarily entered into this discussion. So let's look at your "diffs". Number 19, Pszenno, what's wrong with it? That Matthead stated that it was part of Germany until 1945? That it had a German name for hundreds of years? Sorry, but it was, and it did. Number 20, Questioning the possibility that he's being stalked? Where exactly are you coming from with that? Now a person cannot question that possibility without it causing you to file an AE? What really surprises me the most, however, is I thought this matter was over and done with when Sandstein put it all into proper perspective, and pretty much said that there is sufficient blame all around, so cool it (with a poignant reference to you. P.P.). Evidently some people are unable to do that, and the sad part is after enough of this nonsense begins to be carefully scrutinized, the day may come when a genuine complaint filed by you will go the way of this. Do something more constructive. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I'm an uninvolved editor in these particular issues, but have encountered disruptive edit warring on Matthead's part in the past. I too think the idea of a temporary voluntary mutual WP:1RR restriction between Matthead and Radek is a good idea in this case. If either of them violates the agreement, an admin should have the discretion to block. I would encourage both editors to willingly agree to it. If either party does not agree to this, I think we need to hear from them why they do not and go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been quite patient and disinterested about this thread here, but User:Good Olfactory showing up here is the camel that breaks my back. He is the "uninvolved editor" who felt the need to block me for 31 hours in February, among others for "unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry". This refers probably to this edit of mine in response to a user openly declaring to using both User:Aecis and User:Aec is away according to policy, thus me stating the obvious while still not knowing how to address him, Aecis or Aec. He had stated that (until 1990) "There was no Germany to be a citizen of". While he is entitled to have and express this opinion, it is not acceptable that such fringe theories can enter Wikipedia articles or are used to create and populate categories like Category:West German expatriates in the Netherlands. Then, I have chosen to call this incredible bullshit (which is probably the profanity part of the block notice). Well, now I repeat myself: incredible bullshit. Feel free to warn me, restrict me, block me, ban me. As a consequence of the block, I had already chosen to stay away for two months or so. Oddly, in the meantime, User:Aecis, an admin, left Wikipedia, and a statement behind with which I have to agree. Also, I left Good Olfactory's block notice on my talk page, just to remind myself about his qualities as an admin, and about what is wrong on this Wikipedia, where any nonsense is welcome when it's inserted in a superficially civil manner. And when its supported by some others, it becomes "consensus", which does not need to be backed up by facts. Thanks to English Wikipedia, I've learned in the 2000s that until September 1990, I and about 60 million others were West Germans, and only since 3 October 1990, when West Germany was abolished, we've become Germans. Well, my passport issued in 1987 says "Federal Republic of Germany - The bearer of this passport is a German", and it was accepted in several foreign countries until it expired in 1992. If certain modern day Wiki editors and admins had been customs officials then, they would have probably tried to arrest me for passport fraud or whatever, as I had presented a passport of a non-existing country like Atlantis or Utopia. The foreign customs officials who due to the Schengen agreement may have lost their jobs hopefully have become teachers of history, so maybe future wiki users are better educated. As for the matter with Radek, especially after his statement "and honestly I have no idea who Gwinndeith is" I'm interested in the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gwinndeith (since moved to Molobo). Hopefully it is dealt with before CU evidence becomes stale. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Matthead, I'm not familiar with the details of the situation of Aecis, but if a user is upfront about having two different handles how is that sock puppetry? From Wiki's own article on the subject A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community.. If a person states ahead of time that there's two accounts he's using where's the deception? It seems like the block made by GOf was justified, even putting your incivility inside. So this in no way compromises GOf, even if you did put him on your blacklist. The reason I comment on this is because this seems to be a typical development here - Matthead (or someone else) violates some rule or sanction he's been subject too, action is taken or the matter is brought up but immediately it becomes an issue not of Matthead (or someone else) having violated the rule or sanction but of other editors who care to comment being subject to attack (like GOf above).

The middle of your post - the part that is not completely irrelevant (customs officials?), the part where you complain about consensus on Wiki and so on, basically shows that you are not in fundamental agreement about how Wikipedia works. This is probably where a lot of the trouble is stemming from.

Finally, I honestly have no idea who Gwinndeith is and I resent any insinuation to the contrary. This one is another example of false accusations and hostile attitude that this Arb Enf is supposed to address. I hope that if anything else this serves as additional proof that some action needs to be taken here.

Oh, and it's the camel whose back is broken, the camel doesn't break anyone's back. Sorry to be pedantic.radek (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Good Ol'factory, your comments make some sense and your suggestions are reasonable. But my question to you is, if indeed you are as you claim, "an uninvolved editor in these particular issues," how is that possible, if you "have encountered disruptive edit warring on Matthead's part in the past". How can you be "an uninvolved editor"? Uninvolved how? Uninvolved, as in "neutral" by implication? It would seem that you have not only been involved with Matthead and his participation on WP, but were not pleased with it. Personally, I have not encountered disruptive edit warring on Matthead's part in the past. In fact, I met him on WP concerning a very contentious debate over the issue of the Klaipeda region, where we are still in vehement disagreement. In spite of this, he has always been courteous and responsive to alternative opinions. Then again, I have never tried to ram my POV down his throat, or been insulting to him. It worked for me. Anyway, your points concerning a resolution of this matter are valid. I think Sandstein pretty much said as much, and much more succinctly earlier. Motion to close this, and the sooner the better. Dr. Dan (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Dr. Dan, I'm glad your interactions with Matthead have been positive. But please don't try to flip this. The exact reason this issue has come up is because Matthead HAS BEEN insulting and possibly (I'll leave this to other's judgement) he's the one who's trying to "ram" POV on the relevant talk pages. This is why he had these "discretionary sanctions" placed on him in the first place and this is why he's here on this board again. As I said before, I will be happy to stay away from Matthead, provided he does the same in good faith. But that's not what this Arb Enf is about and it looks like that Arbitration that took place (which I was not a part of) and the resulting 'discretionary sanctions' seem to be just empty words and have no teeth - even if there is more concern about Matthead's conduct.radek (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I have asked Matthead to comment on my proposal regarding a mutual 1RR restriction. If he does not do so soon, I intend to close this thread by imposing the appropriate discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  08:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also note this recent comment by Matthead at Jena: [99], an article that he has not made a single edit on since Sept 2007 (and even that only a minor one), until I made a comment on the talk page (not even a main page edit!) yesterday. I think this, and the intended message his comment is supposed to send, puts his accusations of "stalking" in proper perspective. Note also that I almost immediately agreed to the voluntary 1RR while Matthead responded by writing a long comment - his own airing of unrelated grievances - but did not choose to make the same kind of commitment. Again, putting the accusations of "edit warring" into proper perspective. (I'm not even gonna bother commenting on his complete lack of AGF here).radek (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Matthead

While Radeksz has agreed to the mutual 1RR restriction proposed above, Matthead has not. This makes it necessary to impose binding discretionary sanctions. While both editors have edit-warred, as noted above, Matthead's conduct appears more troublesome due his generally more aggressive tone. Also, his contributions to this discussion are not promising; they do not address the issues raised by Piotrus but detail at length irrelevant issues such as various grievances against other users and something about German passports.

For this reason, pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary sanctions, I am directing Matthead to observe the WP:1RR rule with respect to all other editors in all pages related to Eastern Europe for six months, beginning now.

I note that Radeksz has voluntarily undertaken to do likewise (but only with respect to any edits by Matthead, not other editors) and may also become subject to formal sanctions if he does not. The 1RR applies only to edits made by Matthead while logged in.

Generally speaking, I recommend that both editors leave each other alone for now. I also note that I agree with EdJohnston's notes on implementation above.  Sandstein  17:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WLRoss

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Request concerning WLRoss

User requesting enforcement

Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

If this article is only about what reliable sources want to report about conspiracy theories maybe it's time to leave and start a new article about what conspiracy theorists themselves believe so that readers will at least know all the relevant information...
Attempts to add original research by way of synthesis
Tendentious attempts to support the addition of unverified info to Wikipedia

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

The first diff sums it up nicely. The editor uses Wikipedia as a soapbox to espouse conspiracy theories. They have a long history of making such comments. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban.

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[100]

Discussion concerning WLRoss

The second edit cited above, as an attempt to introduce WP:OR, reads: "While watching footage of the collapse of WTC 7, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite." It's a statement of a news anchor, and the notability is established by reference to a third-party WP:RS source. It may not be relevant to the article, but that would be a content dispute, not a behavioural matter.  Cs32en  15:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement is being used by inference to suggest that Dan Rather supports the controlled demolition hypothesis. He does not. That content is pure synthesis unless we have a secondary source that connects it to the controlled demolition theory. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I neither said nor inferred any such thing. The other editors were arguing for it's deletion on the premise that he was not talking about controlled demolition. I stated that, when taken in context with what the other reporters said to him, Jennings WAS talking about CD as can be seen from my post, I made no claim he believed it. My only argument was exactly what I said in Talk- he said it in reply to a suggestion of controlled demolition which supports that that was what he meant.
In reply to the first diff: What is the problem with suggesting another article? I had civil comment from other editors including two of your supporters. Why would I want to "espouse conspiracy theories" when I don't believe in them which is made clear in my user page and supported by my posted rejections of including conspiracy theory content in the "September 11 Attacks' and "Collapse of the World Trade Center" articles?
To reply to the first accusation: I never tried to add anything at all as it was already in the article and had been for a very long time. It had been deleted, according to the edit comment, for having no cite so I replaced it and added a reference (The Calgary Herald).
To reply to the second accusation: A fact tag was placed against a claim that already had a cite so I removed it. This is supported by my edit comment "..Already one cite and a search finds another 10,000+ mostly 911truth related so the premise is not disputed..". I fail to see how this can be construed as "support(ing) the addition of unverified info to Wikipedia".
I made these edits before they were brought up in Talk as a dispute and I have not edited the article since. Wayne (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The 3rd diff is a problem. If you can add a reliable source, then you should do so. Otherwise, you should leave the tag in place. Removing the tag, without adding a source is unacceptable. Saying the 'premise is not disputed' shows a lack of willingness to edit in accordance within community norms, so I think a ban would be appropriate. PhilKnight (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The hostility[101] and accusations of censorship[102] make WLRoss one of the more difficult editors to work with. I brought this to his attention and he replied here:[103] Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hostility: An editor put a fact tag on the paragraph to which I replied I'd find a source for it in a few days. He then deleted it with the comment he could not find a source which appeared to be disruptive. I found a source in seconds. It can be frustrating when editors do not do the research to back their claims and ignore you but I do not feel I was any more hostile than some of the editors here who get no complaint for often much worse and I doubt anyone can find many instances where I was that frustrated so it is not as if it's a problem.
Censorship: I accused no one. The argument was being made that the issue was not a part of CT. If the opposite is the case of course it would be censorship. That is probably the only time I have ever used the word since I first joined WP
My reply: I don't have to defend it as it backs up what I said above and that I acted in good faith. Wayne (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning WLRoss

WLRoss banned from articles and talk pages which relate to the events of September 11 for 1-week. PhilKnight (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wowest

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Request concerning Wowest

User requesting enforcement

Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories

Sanction or remedy that has been violated

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy

[104]Revising *DISHONEST* deletion by Ice Cold Beer.See talk. [105]

Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue

Adding weasel words. Claiming fringe theorists are "scholars". Belligerance towards good faith editors trying to restore WP:NPOV and WP:V. Wowest was topic banned from 9/11 previously from April 22, 2008 until June 1, 2008. They are fully on notice that these sorts of editing tactics are unacceptable.

Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction)

Topic ban of appropriate length

Additional comments

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[106]

Discussion concerning Wowest

This dispute seems to be about

• whether deleting the word "other" in the sentence "These conclusions are widely rejected by other scholars." would imply that the person who has published these conclusions (Dr. Steven Jones) would not be a scholar and
• whether retaining the word "other" would amount to inserting weasel words or would be necessary as a clarification.

According to the source (CBS, Aug. 6, 2006), Jones was at the time "a tenured physicist at Brigham Young University" (he is now Professor emeritus).  Cs32en  19:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Cs32en. If any other editors have comments to offer regarding this complaint, they are free to do so in this section. I'm currently looking into the matter, and will offer a result shortly.

In the meanwhile, a query: has Wowest been offered any guidance on how to amend his editing habits, in accordance with the requirements set down by the discretionary sanctions remedy? I am aware he was banned from editing the 9/11 subject area in 2008 for disruptive editing, but has he recently been "counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines"?

AGK 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a relatively new editor so I don't like to weigh in on these sort of matters but title of Wowest's talk page post seems like a personal attack on Ice Cold Beer as he's critisizing an editor and not content [107]. I don't know if it's relevent to this discussion but Wowest also made a similar personal attack towards me a couple months ago on the talk page of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article.[108] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wowest accuses Ice Cold Beer of being "*DISHONEST*" in the edit summary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian refers to Prof. Jones and the other people mentioned in the paragraph of the article as "scholars" [109].  Cs32en  22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that The Guardian article was written 3 days before Jones was stripped of his classes and placed on leave[110] and six weeks before his resignation.[111] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Prof. Steven Jones maintains a website provided to him by Brigham Young University which clearly says "Steven E. Jones. Retired Professor." He did not resign, he retired from the university.  Cs32en  01:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post says he resigned.[112] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It also says, in the same article, "His retirement is effective Jan. 1." In fact, it uses "resigned" once, and "retire" or "retirement" three times.   Cs32en  02:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Resignation and retirement are not mutually exclusive. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we have both explained the relevant arguments with regard to the content dispute at hand. This content dispute is closely related to the A/E case, as one of the accusations is "insertion of weasel words". However, I will not continue this discussion here.  Cs32en  15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I only came here to point out that the title of Wowest's talk page post is a personal attack and also to point out that Wowest made a similar post against me a couple months ago.[113]. We got side-tracked on the content dispute with this edit.[114]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are a few diffs showing past efforts to guide this editor away from disruption:

• Please seek consensus on the article talk page before making contentious edits.
• ...this edit clearly violates WP:NOR
• Hi. Wikipedia is not to be used for ideological struggle...
• ARB911 decision notification.

They seem to have had no impact. Other attempts may have been made on article talk pages. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, can you explain to me why you are referring to other individual editors as "they": "They came here", "They have a long history", "They are fully on notice"? This approach appears to me as de-personalizing and offensive.  Cs32en  23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. "They" is gender neutral for "he or she". Jehochman ^Talk 03:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The American English Usage Panel that determines dictionary definitions in the U.S., by majority agreement, rejects the use of they. Using "they" for he, she or it is considered "disrespectful" of grammatical rules concerning pronoun agreement. Using "other" preceding the word scholars in that sentence is also correct grammar as it avoids false implications of the subjects status. Wayne (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholars or Virtually all scholars would be a better edit than other scholars, assuming there is a source for that.

I accept your explanation that you intended to address the editors by the singular they. The singular they usually follows a non-specific indefinite and is generally not being used as the grammatical subject of a sentence.  Cs32en  04:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cares? I try to avoid the singular they, but it has come in to common usage in the English language. This is merely a distraction from the matter at hand; Wowest is a disruptive editor who has been disciplined before which has clearly not improved his behavior. I trust that the closing administrator will reward Wowest with his indefinite topic ban and he will not be a problem for editors trying to improve 9/11-related articles. Good riddance. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. I asked for input on the wider issue; please focus on that, rather than calling out non-existent issues in the wording of other editors' comments. AGK 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The question whether certain people should be described as "scholars" does not call for further discussion here because it is a content dispute, whereas discretionary sanctions are intended to address conduct problems. The "Revising *DISHONEST* deletion" edit summary is incivil, but I have not yet seen evidence that it is characteristic of a pattern of behavior (which would call for sanctions) and not an isolated incident (which would not).  Sandstein  08:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Wowest would agree to tone down the rhetoric and avoid moving articles away from WP:NPOV. That might sway the opinions of some observers. Jehochman ^Talk 13:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Result concerning Wowest

This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark it as closed.

I will preface this closure with two statements: (1) in the course of my administrator duties, I tend to extend extreme leniency; (2) the result of this complaint is one which extends great leniency to Wowest.

Wowest's editing in the 9/11 subject area is concerning in a few aspects: whilst his interest in the subject has given rise to a wide array of improvements to articles pertaining to it, it could also be argued that it has resulted in an element of bias entering into the content of his edits. Editors should be aware that, if they find themselves unable to write neutral, factual articles—most especially in subject areas that they are keenly interested in—then they ought to be not contributing to that subject area at all. Wowest: please take note of that entire sentence; and, if you feel you can't write accurate and unbiased 9/11 articles, then withdraw from contributing to the subject area at all (lest you be removed by means of a topic ban).

With regards to the specific incident which prompted this complaint, I'm willing to extend leniency—in light of the ambiguities of the sources, due to the confusion over the timing of the "retirement / resignation incident", to assume good faith, and to conclude that Wowest was not, in making this edit, deliberately altering the content of the article in a way that, (a) skewed it towards a particular bias, and/or (b) [hence] made the article inaccurate.

To resolve this complaint, I'm extending no restrictions on Wowest, based on the evidence presented in this complaint. I am, however, issuing a formal, final warning to Wowest: if he, in any article in the 9/11 subject area, (a) edits disruptively; or (b) introduces biased, inaccurate, or poorly sourced material, he can expect to be banned from editing 9/11 articles. (If a complaint is brought against him in the future, I ask that I be alerted to it, so that I may present my individual input on it.)

On a closing note, I ask—probably in vein, what with this subject area's contentious history; but, I ask nonetheless—that all editors contributing to 9/11 articles remember that we're trying to build a project which benefits our readers (by presenting them with fully-sourced, accurate, and up-to-date information), rather than one which suits whatever rendition of events we believe in or whatever biases we happen to hold.

I hope this provides some degree of resolution to the debate surrounding this complaint.

AGK 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.