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

Important information

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Edit this section for new requests

Tundrabuggy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Tundrabuggy (aka Dajudem) indefinitely community banned. AGK 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Tundrabuggy

Summary

Tundrabuggy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who edits exclusively in the area of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is Dajudem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor who was topic banned from that area for one year in April 2008. The Tundrabuggy account was created a month later.

Background

Dajudem was banned for a year from all Arab-Israeli articles on April 23, 2008 after CAMERA, a pro-Israel lobby group, was found to have formed a group of people to edit those articles from CAMERA's perspective. CAMERA called the project "Isra-pedia," and Dajudem was part of it. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign. Moreschi issued the ban, [1] which was upheld on May 28, 2008 by the ArbCom. [2] That was the day User:Tundrabuggy was created and began editing. Dajudem stopped editing on May 17. [3]

Shared e-mail address

The sockpuppetry came to light because Tundrabuggy e-mailed me from an account that a google search showed had been used by Dajudem. I learned a couple of days ago that Dajudem had been topic-banned. I e-mailed her to say I knew she was Dajudem, and to ask whether the ban had been overturned. She didn't deny being Dajudem, and acknowledged that the ban was still in place.

Aggravating circumstances

I wouldn't invariably report a topic-banned editor if they'd quietly returned to do good work, but this case is somewhat egregious for the following reasons:

As Tundrabuggy, she started editing it from an opposing perspective — e.g. [5] [6] [7] and on talk here and here.

Through her editing and her complaints to Elonka about Chris, [8] she eventually contributed to a situation where ChrisO was temporarily article-banned by Elonka for reverting too much. Tundrabuggy was also temp-banned from the al-Durrah article. [9]

In my recent e-mails to her, I asked Tundrabuggy whether she had targeted ChrisO because he'd exposed the CAMERA lobby a month earlier. She said she had not.

2. Tundrabuggy made a statement to the ArbCom supporting Chris's article ban, in which she said she was a new user, [10] a deception that would have been unnecessary if she had stayed out of the situation. She made the same claim during Elonka's RfC. [11]

3. After the al-Durrah sitution, Tundrabuggy followed Chris to articles on ancient Mesopotamian history and started feuding with him there - see the discussion at AN/I where Chris writes, "[Tundrabuggy] now appears to be wikistalking me from article to article, opposing whatever I support, supporting whatever I oppose, allying with and aiding editors with whom I have an editorial dispute." [12]

In the interests of transparency

Tundrabuggy and I have been involved in a difference of opinion at Exodus from Lydda, which is how I came to look through her contribs. I reported Jaakobou below [13] over his editing style at that article, and was accused of using this board to win a content dispute. I may be accused of the same thing here, so I'll just post this and won't comment further unless I'm asked for more information. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant links

Moreschi's topic ban of Dajudem
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign; section about Dajudem is here
Administrative review about the wikilobby from ChrisO, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and Moreschi.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying; topic bans upheld here.
Dajudem's IP address, which she posted herself, in case it's needed.
Judadem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), another account linked by IP to Dajudem; she said it was someone she lived with. [14]
ChrisO's appeal against Elonka's sanctions

Tundrabuggy informed

[15]

Discussion concerning Tundrabuggy

Given what SlimVirgin has presented above, I think it is indisputable that Tundrabuggy/Dajudem managed successfully to evade her topic ban for the ten months from June 2008 (when the Tundrabuggy article was created), through to 23 April 2009, when the ban expired. It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban (see [16]). At the very least, I would suggest resetting the ban to run for a further ten months, i.e. to March 2010. However, in the circumstances of this very flagrant ban evasion and the aggravating circumstances, I would suggest a full block for at least that ten month period. Frankly I would not be averse to making it an indefinite block. Given that Tundrabuggy/Dajudem was topic-banned for sockpuppetry and evidently continued that behaviour after being topic-banned, it would probably also be useful to do a checkuser run on the accounts to see if there are any further socks being used or waiting to be activated. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If true, this is an extremely egregious abuse of the wiki. I support an indefinite, complete ban. Cla68 (talk) 03:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any useful information from checkuser on this linkage? It's not essential to a decision, but might be helpful if available. MastCell ^Talk 03:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Tundrabuggy took a Giant Step [17] without saying "May I?" I would not argue for a different out come. What concerns me is that infractions of rules, that exist no place but this website, have turned WP noticeboards into rivers of complaining and whining by informers and squealers. In my view, all this crap, with the time spent by editors (trying to find ways of getting rid of editorial opponents) on formatting accusations, and the resulting wiki-floggings for "egregious abuse", is more disruptive to the editing of articles than what seems to be the prime wiki-crime of edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Tundrabuggy

OK. I am throwing myself on my wiki sword. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems such a very obvious and egregious case, I am indef-blocking both accounts and propose treating them as community-banned. I would appreciate it if some checkuser could store relevant IP data of this editor, because given their history, chances are they will try this again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above action. This is a very egregious case of sock puppetry and bad faith editing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indef block is obviously the right move here; like Fut. Perf., I hope a checkuser is investigating the matter and keeping a record of the IPs, etc. We'll probably see a reincarnation of this account at some point. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would support resetting the ban timer, and installing a block (with CheckUser support) to run concurrent to, and enforce, that ban. In keeping with my usual leniency in administrator duties, I am not minded to indefinitely expel a user from the project, but I do accept that this editor is guilty of gross violations of the site's policies. AGK 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general observation, this is an account which was created and immediately jumped into a heated dispute. Over thousands of edits, this account did literally nothing other than edit various controversial articles from an agenda-driven perspective and politick in projectspace. Let's say this had not turned out to be the sock of a banned user - does this kind of account contribute anything of value to this encyclopedia, or are they just drains on the resources and goodwill upon which the project depends? The decision to block this account is easy, because it's a block-evading sockpuppet, but that's actually almost a superfluous piece of data. It's fine to have a point of view, and to express it. But if you do literally nothing on Wikipedia other than advocate for a specific agenda, then... I mean, really. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True; I don't deny the account is presently contributing almost nothing. But, I'd like to think—and I'll freely admit here that I'm being sanguine—that, in a year's time or whatnot, the user might consider trying his hand at contributing. When the user comes back, an indefinite ban is going to provide no motivation to "wait it out" (why wait out something with no defined length?) and actually return. Again, though: I'm playing the optimist. :-) If he does evade the ban, we'll reset it; and if it does expire and he does return and disrupt, we can quite speedily re-block and/or re-ban. Sorry if I'm being absurd, but I'll stand by what I say. AGK 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clearly in the minority here, so I'll go ahead and implement the indefinite ban—but, if folks don't object, adding a personal note that he is welcome to contact me at a later date if he wishes to return to the project. AGK 19:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An indef block is obviously appropriate for this sort of ban evasion. As a procedural matter, community bans are best discussed on WP:ANI, which has a greater audience, and that board would have been a more appropriate place to file this request, which is not really about arbitration enforcement. Sandstein 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe technically it is about arbitration enforcement, since the topic-ban TB evaded was confirmed by the Arbitration Committee [18]. It's better dealt with here than in the frenzy of AN/I, in any case. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefinite block for all accounts of this user. Mastcell is right on the money. This user did nothing but treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD (but when is that policy ever seriously enforced?). Moreover, the user spread the Israel/Palestine feud into areas which have nothing to do with the issue, such as ancient Persian history, helping to skew content and create edit-warring elsewhere. I really don't see why we tolerated that kind of behaviour from this account, sock puppet or no sock puppet. Something should have been done sooner. --Folantin (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Support indefinite block. This user has worn, wearied, and wasted the time of too, too many editors. Bishonen | talk 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Jaakobou

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No action taken. AGK 20:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.

Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [19] 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.

Here he adds a POV tag to the entire article, [20] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too.

Here he removes Sandy Tolan, [21] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian.

Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [22] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP.

Here he removes from the lead the number of Palestinians expelled from Lydda and Ramla, [23] 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.

Here he three times removes from the lead that Palestinians were shot for refusing to hand over their valuables, calling it "emotional overtones," [24] [25] inserting it instead into the fourth section from the end as though it's an afterthought. [26] 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.

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. [27]

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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [28]

Jaakobou's responses

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

This is just incorrect. For example, I also supported RolandR's removal of accurate but completely non-conservative text from the Ilan Pappe (a person whom I do not like - according to SlimVirgin) lead.[29] Bad faith suggestions are easy to come by but making them based on false information makes for bad decorum. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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"[30] - 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."[31] - 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)[reply]

Here he removes Norman Finkelstein, [32] 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. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed there would be a serious discussion about Ilan Pappe and opened that discussion myself.[33] 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.[34] He's also been widely criticized for shoddy scholarship.[35][36] 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)[reply]

Here he adds a POV tag to the entire article, [37] just because Finkelstein was used once in a footnote as a source to support an issue that other sources were supporting too. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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."[38] I also expanded on this and received support from both User:Ceedjee ([39])as well as User:Jalapenos do exist ([40]) for some of my raised concerns. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. SlimVirgin, insisted on removing the tags (that linked to the relevant discussion sections) twice[41][42] adding bad faith suggestions.[43][44][45][46] Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he removes Sandy Tolan, [47] a journalist who teaches (or taught) journalism at UC Berkeley, because Tolan's article was published by al-Jazeera, which is pro-Palestinian. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

Here he accuses Norman Finkelstein of "Holocaust denial," [48] which is false (anyone claiming it has not read Finkelstein), and a violation of BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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[49] -- some less subtle samples (indisputably problematic) [50][51] -- and supports the clearly antisemitic group Hezbollah.[52] 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)[reply]

Here he removes from the lead the number of Palestinians expelled from Lydda and Ramla, [53] 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. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.[54] I certainly did not remove the numbers at no point in time. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here he three times removes from the lead that Palestinians were shot for refusing to hand over their valuables, calling it "emotional overtones," [55] [56] inserting it instead into the fourth section from the end as though it's an afterthought. [57] 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. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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. [58]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 [59]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [60], 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)[reply]

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 [61][62]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[63][64][65][66] 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,[67] and User:Ceedjee ([68]) as well as User:Jalapenos do exist ([69]) both agreed with some of the concerns I've raised.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [70] 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." [71]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. [72][73]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

The discussaion [74] is not settled, very much in process. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By the way, her claim that I did not supply a source is a lie. I do not add content without sources [75], and was certainly in the now deleted version of article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, [76] 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, [77] 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, [78] 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," [79] 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)[reply]

I must say this is a very puzzling comment - so, when many editors can't agree, the solution is to hand out bans? Based on what? Wikipedia has numerous procedure to resolve disputes, and you should read about them [WP:DR|here]] if you are really unfamiliar with them. Nowhere in WP:DR does it say that if there is a lack of cohesion amongst a group of editors contributing to an article, they should be banned. NoCal100 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a requirement to obtain consensus before applying a ban. Have another look at WP:ARBPIA. PhilKnight (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARBPIA does not authorize admins to ban editors for "lack of cohesion". NoCal100 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo NoCal100,

PhilKnight is right that a consensus for a block is not a requirement (though it's best to approach things from a conservative angle) and you are also right that lack of cohesion among editors is not much of a reason, without more serious issues, to sanction a large group of editors. I figure this argument should be made at some other location though and to be frank, I'm not sure an inclusive ban on everyone on the page would be applied so quickly. Usually other methods are tried first to try and calm down the situation. I always advise editors to review the WP:NAM article. In general, it probably wouldn't hurt if everyone involved took a mutual leave for a short while to allow things to calm down a bit. Large scale edits should probably be done in very small edits and time for others to respond and raise concerns would benefit a collaborative atmosphere.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added a few comments to the points raised by SlimVirgin.[80][81] I'd like to note that while a number of the claims are clearly incorrect, I don't consider them to have been written with malice intent. I believe SlimVirgin simply wanted all POVs to be equally represented and thus did not want sources rejected on political grounds. Perspnally, I feel that when reliable and non-controversial mainstream academic sources exist for historical accounts it's best to leave out added support by those with fringe perspectives. In fact, WP:RS notes that usually those sources are avoided and I would hate to see editors try to coatrack reference sections with problematic sources (on either side of the political specturm). Sure, I've been noted on making what seems like only edits against anti-Israel sources but I've made some contributions to also hold back pro-Israel perspective contributions when I felt they harm the quality of the project - both in the article where I noted that an incidental killing of 97 Jewish doctors was an undue mention for the background section - and in general, on wikipedia (see Keeping it wiki-neutral Memorabilia. I would like to collaborate with SlimVirgin in an atmosphere where I'm not misrepresented and mispercieved. I've been around for a while and learned what makes for long term lasting articles in the I-P area and, as-such, have gained the respect of at least some of my peers. I'd be interested in getting SlimVirgin (and PhilKnight who gave me 3 quazi barnstars) to notice my efforts (see also my image and DYK sections above the barnstars) rather than jump to conclusions and suggest I'm a threat to the project.

Warm respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC) another diff. 23:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To judge whether Jaakobou is "a threat to the project" please review his past and present conduct on I/P articles, not the rationalizations he presents here. RomaC (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like that only provoke and add fuel to the fire. I ask that you retract that. Wizardman 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for your response, Jaakobou; and I am already examining the conduct of involved editors at length, RomaC.
In the meanwhile, I continue to invite the input of interested parties in this thread; I'd rather take my time and do this right, with a slower closure, than speedily close the thread and have to look at this again in a week or two...
AGK 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakobou and Finkestein

With regard to Jaakobou's comment:

“

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[82] -- some less subtle samples (indisputably problematic) [83][84] -- and supports the clearly antisemitic group Hezbollah.[85] 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. -- User:Jaakobou 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

”

Finkelstein does not claim that "Holocaust survivors are lying or that the Holocaust is exaggerated". His book The Holocaust Industry is subtitled Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering and one of the book's main theses is that funds that should have benefitted victims of the Nazi Holocaust have been expropriated for less commendable ends. Finkelstein does not "deny" or "minimize" any aspect of the historical Nazi Holocaust. Finkelstein does not support Hezbollah, as he makes clear here. Finkelstein is a meticulous fact and source checker, which makes his books on the I/P conflict invaluable. If he says that A claims B on page xxx of C then you can be pretty sure he's correct. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all you say about Finkelstein is on the form of your personal opinions about him, and the one source you give does not seem to support the claims you make. But why the WP:SOAP statement about Finkelstein on this noticeboard? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy and WP:BLP concerns. Notably, Raul Hillberg "totally agrees" with Finkelstein's "breakthrough" in a much-quoted comment on the cover of The Holocaust Industry. The "one source" I gave is Finkelstein stating that he knows nothing about the political positions of Hezbollah and stating that he does not support Hezbollah. Ian Pitchford (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyo Ian Pitchford,

Factual accuracy and WP:BLP concerns are indeed important but reliable sources say: "American Professor, Ousted From DePaul University, Declares Support for Hezbollah in Lebanon".[86]

p.s. this section's title feels a bit personal and I would appreciate it if you change it a bit. Current title of "(Username) and (insert controversial figure here)" feels off and I'm sure no one appreciate similar sections titled after them. It's nothing serious though. Just a matter of basic civility.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I truly am in a muddle over what to do here. The issue of whether Jaak. is removing sources because they are in favour of a given viewpoint or because they are unreliable remains unresolved, and I doubt an adminsitrator with no experience in this field of content—such as myself—is able to resolve it; that I'm being given convincing arguments for both sides of this issue is only adding to the problem.

As I see it, the options are as follows:

(1) Close complaint without action;

(2) Topic ban Jaakobou and all other editors who refuse to settle the issue of whether the disputed sources are reliable (under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions);

(3) Defer the matter to the Arbitration Committee for consideration.

AGK 17:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who are the editors you think "refuse to settle the issue of whether the disputed sources are reliable"? What makes you think Jaakobou refuses to settle something ,rather than simply disagreeing with other editors? NoCal100 (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing is unbelievable. SlimVirgin's bringing baseless accusations to this noticeboard has disrupted editing of the article more than if there had been edit warring. But then SlimVirgin added to the disruption by disregarding the discussion that was in progress on the talk page and made the changes she wanted without any consensus, thereby setting off actual edit warring that caused the article to be locked. But, instead of considering sanctioning SlimVirgin, you are considering sanctioning Jaakobou. It is close to being a joke, but not really that funny. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think there is an issue with J.'s conduct; I was merely listing possible outcomes of this. I do think there is an issue with the editing of this article: it's become quite unsteady, and that's likely to result in an article that's difficult to edit. AGK 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

No violation of the Palestine-Israel articles arbitration decision has been committed by Jaakobou, and thus no action is taken. Nevertheless, the lack of editorial cohesion on the Exodus from Lydda article is striking, and all parties are reminded that the site's administrators have been authorised by the arbitration committee to deploy sanctions on editors who constitute an ongoing negative influence on articles in this subject area. I would remind Jaakobou, SlimVirgin, Malcolm Schosha, et al., of the need to work with, rather than against, one another when editing—including making changes, discussing changes or proposed changes, and otherwise (directly or indirectly) contributing to the mainspace. AGK 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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: [87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94]
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: [95] [96] [97]. That said, perhaps a CheckUser is at least in order.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [98]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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: [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]
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: [105]

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)[reply]

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 [106] for which he was reprimanded by another admin [107]. 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" [108] 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)[reply]

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 [109][110][111][112], Duchy of Nysa [113] [114] Charge at Krojanty [115] Johann Haller [116] [117] [118] [119] De revolutionibus orbium coelestium [120] [121] Laurentius Corvinus [122] [123] Nicolaus Copernicus [124]. 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 [125] [126] Pszenno [127] [128]. And, coincidentally, another well known user showed up in that Silesian village article, just to revert me: [129], or to remove links to German biographies [130]. 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)[reply]

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 [131], was merely going along with the revert made by another user [132] (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 [133], [134], [135]. 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: [136]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [137] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:[138]. 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)[reply]

- 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 [139] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please also note this recent comment by Matthead at Jena: [140], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]