Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:06, 7 May 2009

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

Shortcuts

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

Jaakobou

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

Request concerning Jaakobou

User requesting enforcement: SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[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, [1] 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, [2] 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, [3] 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," [4] 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, [5] 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," [6] [7] inserting it instead into the fourth section from the end as though it's an afterthought. [8] 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 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. [9]

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: [10]

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]

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.

Viridae

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

Request concerning Viridae

User requesting enforcement: Hipocrite (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Viridae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Parties_admonished_and_instructed & Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV#Parties specifically instructed section 2.iv.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [11]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: As part of this case, "Viridae has agreed to refrain from reverting any of JzG's administrator actions in the future." Viridae reverted one of JzG's adminstrator actions. Viridae should uphold his pledge and continue to avoid JzG.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Warning
Additional comments: I civily requested that Viridae not further revert JzG's adminstrative actions on his talk page. He incivilly rebuffed me, with [12].
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: The requesting user is asked to notify the user against whom this request is directed of it, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise.

Discussion concerning Viridae

I was told to come here by an adminstrator- "Take it to WP:AE if there is a problem, but at present we just need to handle the existing parties to the case." Hipocrite (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frivolous request. The arbitration decision in question referred to an agreement by Viridae not to reverse administrative actions of JzG. However, that agreement substituted for a proposed ruling that would have instructed Viridae not to reverse such decisions except upon discussion and consensus; further, the acting admin on the blacklisting, the one who closed the most recent discussion, was not JzG, it was Beetstra. This is discussed at length at the arbitration evidence page; Hipocrite just removed the entire discussion, then, when reverted (by me), removed his name and all his comments changing the section head to attempt to hide his actions, 'nuff said. --Abd (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't engage in forum shopping. You already raised this issue at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. Jehochman ^Talk 18:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Abd and Jehochman. This request should be closed. PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Viridae

No action taken. PhilKnight (talk) 19:36, 2 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: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]
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: [21] [22] [23]. That said, perhaps a CheckUser is at least in order.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

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)[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.

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]

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: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]
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: [31]

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 [32] for which he was reprimanded by another admin [33]. 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" [34] 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 [35][36][37][38], Duchy of Nysa [39] [40] Charge at Krojanty [41] Johann Haller [42] [43] [44] [45] De revolutionibus orbium coelestium [46] [47] Laurentius Corvinus [48] [49] Nicolaus Copernicus [50]. 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 [51] [52] Pszenno [53] [54]. And, coincidentally, another well known user showed up in that Silesian village article, just to revert me: [55], or to remove links to German biographies [56]. 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 [57], was merely going along with the revert made by another user [58] (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 [59], [60], [61]. 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: [62]. --_{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 [63] 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:[64]. 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 [65] 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: [66], 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.

Johninwiki

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

Request concerning Johninwiki

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Johninwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: Advocating conspiracy theories
How can the importance of this section be justified by other than the personal interest of certain administators?
Persistent attempts to add original research by synthesis
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: This account was registered on April 22, and appears to be mimicking the behavior of other accounts that were previously banned from editing 9/11 pages. This single purpose account was formally warned about the possibility of sanctions.[67] It continues to espouse conspiracy theories, assume bad faith of other editors, and tries to use YouTube as a source.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban from 9/11 pages.
Additional comments: I will ask a Checkuser to look at this one.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [68]

Discussion concerning Johninwiki

What other banned accounts do you mean? Sandstein 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those listed as having been sanctioned at WP:ARB9/11, especially User:Bov and User:Tachyonbursts, and also the meat puppets identified at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Huntdowntheconspiracists. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone who not believes the official 9/11 stories get listed here ? - Johninwiki (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was once listed here, though the editor who did that received a severe sanction and the complaint was dismissed. You can list anybody you like, as can any other editor. Just make sure there is merit to your complaint. Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so this not only happens to newcomers. To your above statement that I regard Youtube videos as reliable source this is not true. The facts I proposed for inclusion in the article have been NIST sources only. I think its eligible to update existing explanations with newest research results. RxS confirmed that already. Also I would like to mention that the portion I proposed as additional information for the article was written objective and didn't include any CD/conspiracy theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninwiki (talk • contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last diff shown does indeed show a lack of understanding of the Original Research policy, however, this could just be a newbie mistake. If you're interested Johninwiki, I was accused of being a sock by Jehochman, so you're in good/bad/indifferent company. (delete as appropriate) PhilKnight (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry about that Phil. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the last diff is as follows: NIST has published a report, on which WP:RS sources have reported. So we have this report in the article. Now NIST has corrected the report, but there are no WP:RS sources on the correction as of this moment. We thus have a misleading information in the article but no WP:RS material for the correct information. I don't know whether there is a specific guideline for such situations or whether the information needs to be thrown out altogether in such a case. Cs32en 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edits reported in the "request" section are all to the article talk page and are not prima facie disruptive. We do not sanction people for suggesting changes to articles, even where we might disagree with the proposed changes or consider them contrary to policy. The edits, as such, are not sanctionable.

On the other hand, I agree with the assessment that this is a single purpose account for whose conduct sock- or meatpuppetry might be a reasonable explananation. What do others think? Sandstein 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this might be a newbie. The problem is we've seen anusually large amount of socks and meat puppet account recently. Moreover, the account is supporting and being supported by other tendentious accounts. We cannot give banned users a free pass to create new accounts to circumvent bans. Perhaps Checkuser could help. Jehochman ^Talk 22:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Johninwiki account was created right after a topic ban was issued to User:Perscurator / Vesa. Same topic interests (controlled demolition + WTC7). Johninwiki's first edit was to ANI [69], and second edit to setup his user page [70]. (though apparently he/she was editing as an IP) Certainly, Johninwiki is not a new user and my suspicions point to Perscurator, or possibly one of his meatpuppets but most likely a sock. --Aude (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that IP is Johninwiki and the location of the IP reflects the user's geograpical location then they aren't even on the same continent as Perscurator. Hut 8.5 10:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think meat puppetry is a more likely explanation. It would not be unduly burdensome to ask single purpose editors to step away from the hotly disputed 9/11 articles and do a bit of editing elsewhere for a few weeks. If they are seriously interested in Wikipedia, they'll be able to edit other topics. If they are only here to advocate for a particular point of view on 9/11, we'd probably be better off without their participation. Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many editors have a more or less strong view on the subject they are editing on. They are not paid, so they edit those articles that they are interested in. What's important is not what the think or advocate, it's what is in the actual edits on the article's page. (For example, your recent edit summary "We don't cite bigfoot believers for evidence of bigfoot" is of course also evidence of advocating a particular viewpoint—the policy aspect of that sentence can be expressed in a neutral way, and it was not applicable anyway in that case, as the claim was not about evidence of "bigfoot", but "XY believes in bigfoot".) Cs32en 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there's anything to debate here, after saying Wiki administrators act as puppets of the US government [71] he should be gone in my opinion. Accusing editors here of covering up mass murder should be enough. He's certainly not here to create an encyclopedia and just as clearly he's here to push a POV. Trying to argue that away is just empty rhetoric. RxS (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Johninwiki

I am indefinitely blocking Johninwiki for the edit cited by RxS. Accusing Wikipedia editors of taking part in an alleged murderous conspiracy is quite beyond the pale. To cover the eventuality that he is unblocked, I am also indefinitely topic-banning him from 9/11-related articles, because his conduct indicates that he is not here to contribute to this topic from a neutral point of view. Sandstein 05:31, 5 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.

WLRoss

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

Request concerning WLRoss

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: WLRoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: If this article is only about what reliable sources want to report about conspiracy theories maybe it's time to leave and start a new article about what conspiracy theorists themselves believe so that readers will at least know all the relevant information...
Attempts to add original research by way of synthesis
Tendentious attempts to support the addition of unverified info to Wikipedia
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: The first diff sums it up nicely. The editor uses Wikipedia as a soapbox to espouse conspiracy theories. They have a long history of making such comments. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban.
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [72]

Discussion concerning WLRoss

The second edit cited above, as an attempt to introduce WP:OR, reads: "While watching footage of the collapse of WTC 7, CBS News anchor Dan Rather said "For the third time today, it's reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen too much on television before when a building was deliberately destroyed by well-placed dynamite."^[1]

^ The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Calgary Herald March 26, 2007

It's a statement of a news anchor, and the notability is established by reference to a third-party WP:RS source. It may not be relevant to the article, but that would be a content dispute, not a behavioural matter. Cs32en 15:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The hostility[73] and accusations of censorship[74] make WLRoss one of the more difficult editors to work with. I brought this to his attention and he replied here:[75] Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Result concerning WLRoss

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

Wowest

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

Request concerning Wowest

User requesting enforcement: Jehochman ^Talk 18:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: Wowest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Arbitration case whose sanctions are to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories
Sanction or remedy that has been violated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Discretionary sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy: [76]Revising *DISHONEST* deletion by Ice Cold Beer.See talk. [77]
Explanation how these edits violate the sanction or remedy at issue: Adding weasel words. Claiming fringe theorists are "scholars". Belligerance towards good faith editors trying to restore WP:NPOV and WP:V. Wowest was topic banned from 9/11 previously from April 22, 2008 until June 1, 2008. They are fully on notice that these sorts of editing tactics are unacceptable.
Enforcement action requested (block, topic ban or other sanction): Topic ban of appropriate length
Additional comments
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [78]

Discussion concerning Wowest

This dispute seems to be about

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

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

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

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

AGK 20:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relatively new editor so I don't like to weigh in on these sort of matters but title of Wowest's talk page post seems like a personal attack on Ice Cold Beer as he's critisizing an editor and not content [79]. I don't know if it's relevent to this discussion but Wowest also made a similar personal attack towards me a couple months ago on the talk page of the main 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article.[80] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Guardian refers to Prof. Jones and the other people mentioned in the paragraph of the article as "scholars" [81]. Cs32en 22:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that The Guardian article was written 3 days before Jones was stripped of his classes and placed on leave[82] and six weeks before his resignation.[83] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Washington Post says he resigned.[84] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I only came here to point out that the title of Wowest's talk page post is a personal attack and also to point out that Wowest made a similar post against me a couple months ago.[85]. We got side-tracked on the content dispute with this edit.[86]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Result concerning Wowest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AGK 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[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.

[3] The curious tale of the 'other' WTC tower Calgary Herald March 26, 2007

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 377: / Line 377: @@
 ===Result concerning Wowest===
 ''This section is to be edited only by the administrator closing this request for arbitration enforcement. Use <nowiki>{{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}}</nowiki> to mark it as closed.''
+: I will preface this closure with two statements: (1) in the course of my administrator duties, I tend to extend extreme leniency; (2) the result of this complaint is one which extends great leniency to Wowest.
+: Wowest's editing in the 9/11 subject area is concerning in a few aspects: whilst his interest in the subject has given rise to a wide array of improvements to articles pertaining to it, it could also be argued that it has resulted in an element of bias entering into the content of his edits. Editors should be aware that, if they find themselves unable to write neutral, factual articles—''most especially in subject areas that they are keenly interested in''—then they ought to be not contributing to that subject area at all. Wowest: please take note of that entire sentence; and, if you feel you can't write accurate and unbiased 9/11 articles, then withdraw from contributing to the subject area at all (lest you be removed by means of a topic ban).
+: With regards to the specific incident which prompted this complaint, I'm willing to extend leniency—in light of the ambiguities of the sources, due to the confusion over the timing of the "retirement / resignation incident", to assume good faith, and to conclude that Wowest was not, in making [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?diff=prev&oldid=288231677 this edit], deliberately altering the content of the article in a way that, (a) skewed it towards a particular bias, and/or (b) [hence] made the article inaccurate.
+: To resolve this complaint, I'm extending no restrictions on Wowest, based on the evidence presented in this complaint. I am, however, issuing a formal, final warning to Wowest: if he, in any article in the 9/11 subject area, (a) edits disruptively; or (b) introduces biased, inaccurate, or poorly sourced material, he can expect to be banned from editing 9/11 articles. (If a complaint is brought against him in the future, I ask that I be alerted to it, so that I may present my individual input on it.)
+: On a closing note, I ask—probably in vein, what with this subject area's contentious history; but, I ask nonetheless—that all editors contributing to 9/11 articles remember that we're trying to build a project which benefits our readers (by presenting them with fully-sourced, accurate, and up-to-date information), rather than one which suits whatever rendition of events we believe in or whatever biases we happen to hold.
+: I hope this provides some degree of resolution to the debate surrounding this complaint.
+: [[User talk:AGK|AGK]] 23:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)