User:WikidIKibitzShield

This is an alternative account.

This is an alternate account of User:Wikidgood which is in compliance with policy.   שָׁלוֹםשָׁלוֹםשָׁלוֹם WIKIDIKITZSHIELD -Those who ignore History are doomed to repeat it> 

The purpose of this account is to conduct all editorial activity in certain highly controversial fields - regarding Middle East studies, primarily - of which this user has academic training and expertise and has been subject to contention which this user believes is contrary to NPOV. This user believes that the contentious debate on Robert Wistrich Talk page is very lopsided in that (a) the contentions are made by a user with admin privileges and a lot of technical experience on wikipedia which this user lacks and (b) that said admin has failed on numerous occasions to respond to specific requests for clarification, compromise or modificaton of various edicts by said user. (c) WikidIKibitzShield/Wikidgood objects to citation of WP:xxxx because one of the remedies for violation of that policy is blocking of account editing privileges.

Because there is at least an implied threat of an arbitrary block intended to harass and enforce POV, the purpose of this account is such that all editing on the areas of contention will be conducted from this account so that in the event that the heavy handed use of admin privileges is abused or otherwise applied against this user, this should be the only account affected.

The specific content-based requests include but are not limited to:

Admit or deny that some contributors to Tikkun magazine can be cited on wikipedia. The admin who is arguing with WikidIKibitzShield/wikidgood has to date failed to modify that edict.

Admit or deny that it is not necessary to be a historian to be citable in regard to Robert Wistrich. The admin who is arguing with WikidIKibitzShield/wikidgood has failed to respond to that request for modification.

Rather, wikidgood stands accused of violating WP:xxxx and thus in jeopardy of blocking.

THis user has an academic degree in history and is engaged in edits on other topics. In the event that the pattern continues, and this user is accused by the more-powerful administrator of violating WP:xxxx, the block should be to this account ONLY pending arbitration.

This users would under that circumstance honor the block on other account(s) with regard to any blocked pages.

A second reason for this account is that it actually makes it more convenient for opponents of this user's views to scan all edits on the area of interest and at least simplifies the whole controversy. If this user's edits in this field later attract good faith criticism, or if the current disputant chills out, addresses the underlying issues, and refrains from accusing this user of policy violations, organizing this user's edits on the affected area of interest will benefit legitimate good faith dialogue.