Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

This page trancludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration


Infoboxes II

Initiated by HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? at 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

ArbCom retains jurisdiction over matters it hears.

Statement by HJ Mitchell

It is a widely acknowledged fact that the original infoboxes case did little to contain the infobox wars. I've thus far avoided getting into this in any detail due to an off-wiki friendship with one of the main parties to the original case. However, that party (Pigsonthewing) was the subject of the recent review and his conduct was addressed there and various remedies imposed and altered. This primarily concerns a recent ridiculous edit war at Laurence Olivier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which I believe is a symptom of a wider problem involving edit-warring and article ownership with regards to infoboxes. I believe multiple parties' conduct bears examination, and discretionary sanctions of some sort are in order. I do not consider myself an involved party or an invovled admin except with regards to Pigsonthewing, as I honestly couldn't care less about whether any given article has an infobox. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Would a clerk please remove Dr. Blofeld's statement as a baseless personal attack. He hasn't provided a shred of evidence or a single diff, and I have no vested interest in this (I don't think I've ever so much as added an infobox to an article I didn't write, nor removed one). He also uses the term "confess" to describe the upfront disclosure that I have an off-wiki friendship with Pigsonthewing (who is not a party to this request) as if to imply misconduct on my part. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dreadstar

Statement by SchroCat

Statement by Cassianto

Statement by Gerda Arendt

I would appreciate if this case request would stick to one article, Laurence Olivier. I wrote yesterday, before I was surprised by another case that is not about infoboxes:

Did you know that Laurence Olivier had an undisputed infobox from 25 May 2006 until 14 January 2015? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

If those who improved the article had simply kept the tradition of almost 10 years, a service to some readers, we would not be here. I missed the peer review and the FAC because I wrote articles, noticed what had happened only afterwards, and only then (!) added it to the list which I keep since the first infoboxes case, of infoboxes which were damaged. I am passionate about the Passions, not about the little boxes. Real people really die (article not by me). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I ask to respect that I have more important things to do than even watch this during the Holy Week and Easter. I agree with Dr. Blofeld that Chopin would be another interesting discussion to investigate. A compromise was reached, accepted by a main editor, installed by Brianboulton, and what happened then? - I encourage the arbitrators to request more willingness for compromise and respect. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld (mostly): Laurence Olivier was added to my list of articles with a former (!) infobox that was reverted on 28 February 2015, when I noticed that it was not just another article without an infobox (something I don't mind) but one where other editors had established an infoox long ago which readers were used to see.

@We hope (mostly): what you say my statement implies is not implied.

On Palm Sunday: Did you know ... that Bach used music of thanks from his cantata Wir danken dir, Gott, wir danken dir, BWV 29, for his final Dona nobis pacem (Grant us peace)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Arkon

For real? I guess I stand by my 1 article edit, and 2 talk page edits. Oh, and I don't care about infoboxes in any fashion. Arkon (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably worth noting that Dreadstar has removed his t-ban from MarkBernstein and unblocked them, after "retiring". Arkon (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

KMN. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Gamaliel

The behavior of certain parties regarding this article has been quite abominable, all the more remarkable for the stunningly insignificant matter being fought over. Apparently yet another reminder is needed that this sort of behavior is unacceptable. Also, if editors are going to continue squabble over infoboxes after the previous ArbCom case, discretionary sanctions might be helpful. Gamaliel (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Given his allegations and behavior, I formally suggest that Dr. Blofeld be added as a party to this case. Gamaliel (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Support User:NE Ent's suggestion here, though I realize that the end result is inevitable, and maybe should be. Despite his flagrant missteps here, Dreadstar has done a lot of hard, thankless work for the community, especially related to Gamergate, and deserves the benefit of the doubt. Gamaliel (talk) 06:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dr. Blofeld

I'm aware that my statement here is a waste of time given the power of certain people here but from my perspective this looks like a clear stitch up and about as corrupt as you can get. I've watched (from my perspective) HJ Mitchell and Ched play this like a chess game in recent days meticulously thought out and plotted, weakening the opponents: [1] [2] (admitted to off wiki discussion), [3] (Six reverts in 48 hours before [4] and the inappropriate use of admin tools by HJ to lock a page down without the note himself, despite being involved), [5] (the questionable blocking of the most outspoken editor against it), "little creeps" [6] (Personal attacks, one by email which they were told was inappropriate), [7] (Attempts to censor talk page comments half of which in this edit shouldn't have been deleted), [8] (An attempt to close this key thread because of the ancient incivility of an IP), [9] (HJ blocked SchroCat less than an hour before opening the case here over this which is a very questionable block given that he'd toned down the note and didn't edit war), and finally the general hostility, stirring and accusations here and here. HJ has confessed that he is a friend of Mabbett's (see Gerda's last arb case) and Olivier has been the target for infobox enforcement for quite some time by those individuals arb imposed sanctions on previously, clearly acknowledging there was a problem. I knew what was happening a few days ago, I found it suspicious that a mere note over infoboxes was gradually turning into a discussion about consensus to have an infobox (Gerda) [10]. When HJ arrived to block the article here it seemed inappropriate for him to intervene, knowing that he is in contact with Andy in real life. Whether or not Schro and Cassianto were heated in their response, I think it's out of frustration that every article taken to FA without an infobox inevitably becomes a target for enforcement.[11], [12], Talk:Frédéric Chopin, [13] etc, need I really cite every case where Mabbett and Arendt have been involved with Schro, Cass, Tim riley etc? There's obvious canvassing and plotting behind the scenes ([14] [15]) and it displays a lot of disrespect for the people who brought this core article up to FA status. They contributed a magnificent article and they're essentially made to look like criminals here. Very sad.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Gamaliel "Also, if editors are going to squabble over infoboxes, discretionary sanctions might be helpful. " Let's be clear on this. Tim riley, Cassianto and SchroCat are not squabbling over infoboxes. When they write articles they agree on infobox or no infobox and promote it like that. John Barrymore for instance makes it clear that they're not completely against them, but disagree where they're of very limited use. They move on constructively and develop other articles. The squabbles result from several editors magically turning up on the article talk pages to mention infoboxes. Olivier has been on that target list for a while now, in fact he tops the list. I think something should be passed which respects the editor's view who promote articles to FA, whether or not that implies ownership or not. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell They're not baseless personal attacks. They're an account of what I've witnessed over the months and recently on here. Do I really need to provide diffs over everything that I've claimed? The arb have imposed sanctions on Andy and Gerda, in fact Pigs on the wing was banned from infoboxes. We all know what I'm saying is largely true that they go through articles adding infoboxes. By asking for my statement to be removed it looks as if you're trying to override the opposition and win out. My statement is on my talk page should it be removed here. If it is removed it will prove how corrupt the premise behind this is, I would ask the committee to give this case a fair look, thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel I wasn't involved in the editing dispute. I did comment on the talk page though that the actions by HJ were suspicious. You and I had a personal run in, but that was over comments made over the blocking of Cassianto and your false perception of racism. I'm outspoken on this largely because I see a repeat pattern with infoboxes and I think it wastes a lot of time and causes unnecessary hostility. I'm of the opinion arb should recognize that infobox disputes are becoming a major problem and that in practice their ruling of infoboxes being an optional thing by the article writers in practice doesn't work. In fact HJ's very case here is contrary to their previous ruling I think. I think before an article is promoted to FA a formal consensus needs to be made very clear on the infobox situation and that seen as final once promoted and to find a way to stop people trying to enforce them after promotion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda and Ne Ent Fact: "the article had an infobox until [15] until a couple editors decided to replace the entire article". Yes it had an infobox between 2006 and Jan 2015. But that was before the article was fully developed. "Decided to replace the entire article" happened to be extremely productive and resulted in a featured article on a core topic, the holy grail of actors. The decision to exclude an infobox on the weight of things is an extremely trivial one, yet you seem to view these editors as having done something destructive in their editing of it to FA. The arb have previously ruled that infoboxes are optional, why isn't their ruling being respected here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad Agreed that the edit war was disruptive. My concern though was that it wasn't just any admin who blocked it in the version without the message, it was HJ, who had been emailed by Ched and is a personal friend of Mabbett whose central focus is infoboxes on here, and that the blocking admin has proceeded to come here, despite a consensus seeming to be forming on the talk page which even Dreadstar accepted to tone down the message. If HJ really doesn't care about infoboxes I don't know why he'd go to such lengths over this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Roger Davies. Exceptionally good point you made there. Yes, the infobox issue needs a review in general and some strict ground rules laid out. In my experience it tends to be featured articles in particular involving a lot of the people commenting here which are subject to infobox enforcement not long after promotion. while the hidden message dispute was silly, it is just part of the overall problem. Arb previously ruled that infoboxes are optional, which I thoroughly agree with, but in practice a group of editors are ignoring it and treating them as essential article components. I do think something needs to change perhaps at FAC in which a new clause like "Is the infobox stable, has consensus been made apparent" sort of thing before passing it and then when somebody comes along it can be swiftly averted. I'd very much appreciate it if you could review this situation and try to provide a solution to what has become a major recurring problem and source for incivility. It is probably best though that somebody neutral on the issue opens an RFC to avoid a possible backlash either way. Somebody like Drmies who I believe is on the fence on the issue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tim riley

Having read the original statement by HJ Mitchell I can't work out what it is intended to mean or what outcome he/she seeks. But given the virulence of his/her reaction to Dr Blofeld's addition my own reaction would be very cautious indeed. If it becomes clear what outcome HJ Mitchell is seeking I shall add my comments here, for what they are worth. Meanwhile I urge caution and restraint by all contributors. Tim riley talk 22:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Later, seeing the Mitchell comments and the Blofeld replies unfolding here I think it would be quite wrong to censor Dr B's comments, which are easily verified. The arbiters can reach a judgement with all the relevant information. Tim riley talk 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I note that Dr B's comments have been redacted, wrongly in my view. It is for bullying about info-boxes that Andy/Pigs has been topic banned and was considered for site banning, with lesser penalties for other allied offenders. Tim riley talk 23:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

A couple of people have asked me whether I planned someday to return to the arbitration pages. This isn't what I had in mind.

Two days ago, an administrator full-protected Lawrence Olivier, which is a featured article, for one week, in order to end an edit-war. There had indeed been some edit-warring. However, the edit-war did not concern the content of the article. The edit-war did not even concern whether or not there should be an infobox on the article. Rather, the edit-war concerned whether the article should contain two sentences of hidden text (i.e., text that shows in the edit window but is not visible to readers), cautioning against adding an infobox.

Full-protecting an entire article for a week over a dispute about two sentences, while occasionally necessary, is usually undesirable. Full-protecting a featured article for a week over a dispute about two hidden sentences struck me as even less desirable. After posting a comment to this effect on the talkpage and waiting two days (see here), I lifted the protection. That was my sole involvement in this matter, and I have no other comments at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I note that Dreadstar has posted a retirement notice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ched

My "involvement":

  • Edits to the article proper 1(note 1)
  • Edits to the article talk page: 0?
  • Administrative actions taken: 0?

I'll do my best to answer any questions the arbs have for me, although I request an understanding that I am not online in any consistent manner at the moment. I do get email on my phone if there's something important I need to address. As far as the statement "I've watched HJ Mitchell and Ched play this like a chess game in recent days, meticulously thought out and plotted, weakening the opponents to inevitably form a case here." - I will have to think on that, because at the moment I have no idea how I should respond. — Ched :  ?  23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Adding: I believe the case (if accepted) would be more accurately titled "Hidden text", "Personal attacks" or perhaps "Oliver". — Ched :  ?  23:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Before this gets archived I would like to make a further statement. I would like to thank both Salvio and Euryalus for acknowledging that there are conduct issues which are relevant to multiple parties that should be examined.
I offer my own sympathy to both Dreadstar and Gamaliel for the personal attacks and injustices that they have been subjected to (some of the most egregious attacks and BLP violations I've been witness to in my time here) . I understand that given the manner in which this case request was framed that it was unlikely that a group misconduct case would be heard.
As far as the derogatory implications made about my use of email - I did forward my email to the entire Arbcom group for review.
In reply to Roger's suggestion of a RfC: While I do agree, and in fact attempted to establish such back in the original 2013 iBox case, it was deemed unacceptable at that time. Since many members of the "pro" iBox faction are under restrictions while none of the "no" iBox faction are restricted, I do have to wonder how equitable such a RfC would be. I will also say that I did suggest that some sort of "main editor" or "creator" be given a certain latitude in regards to a preference to an IBox; which was quickly frowned upon for wp:own reasons.
In the end, I saw a claim that there was some sort organized something regarding pro iBox ... but it appears that quite the opposite is fact.
  • Thank you for your time. — Ched :  ?  03:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(note 1) I saw some back and forth debate on a hidden text note that I felt was intimidating to editors, so I felt it would be best to remove it.

Statement by Collect

(Redacted) Shut this "case" down before it spreads, IMHO. Collect (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (Noting that no "personal attacks" existed in this post - only an opinion that this case is not something I would wish on anyone at all, least of all ArbCom) Collect (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

My involvement prior to the case has been removing the most blatant personal attack and discouraging Dreadstar from mixing the editor and admin roles [16].

Fact: the article had an infobox until [17] until a couple editors decided to replace the entire article [18].

Since then, they've been claiming ownership since the article is "featured." This concept of ownership is something the prior arbcom unfortunately endorsed in part of the infoboxes case -- despite the finding that Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia., it passed a remedy the enshrined the ownership concept.

If the committee chooses to take the case, I hope it is not to simply enact discretionary sanctions, but rather get to the core issues here; specifically,

  1. do featured article writers earn special privileges, or do we actually believe Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone like its says above my edit buffer here?
  2. is what is actually important the wishes of the editors who contribute the most to the article, or what most benefits the reader? NE Ent 23:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments on desysop motion

About that email: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Dreadstar, in which Berstein reports Dreadstar called him a motherfucker; it's fair to say that fall short of the standards of WP:ADMINACCT, and as another editor once remarked NE Ent may be a lot of things, but an apologist for admin is not one of them. I'm also a veteran with 1K WQA and 2K ANI contributions and I've learned to look at what proceeded an event, and found Berstein suckered Dreadstar with I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter. blah blah doubtless campus rape has supporters, too, and Dreadstar unfortunately fell for it, interpreting the comment as saying he supported rape. Of course, there's enough blah blah so Bernstein can act all innocent 'I never said you supported rape.' Note also how the portion of his comment his posted on ANI omits the "I've no idea what Dreadstar means to say immediately above (other than he imagines himself to be right), but that doesn't matter." beginning of the comment. NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

About protecting the "preferred" version: To anyone actually important (i.e. Wikipedia readers) both versions under dispute were the same (that's why it's called "hidden" text). NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

About the out of process unblock: if that's mistake, how come no one has reblocked? NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Dreadstar has worked themselves into a bad spot, but there's a good, longstanding tradition about avoiding in absentia decisions, I suggest simply passing a motion similar to last year's suspending the case until if / when Dreadstar chooses to return or is desyopped for inactivity. NE Ent 20:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by We hope

Belief is that infoboxes are optional and shouldn't be forced overtly or covertly. Reading the talk pages and activities of some of those named as involved should br convincing of this.[19] [20][21] [22] Project Classical Music, Composers and Opera don't use them. They also have hidden text to inform of this.[23]

There's also consensus among editors who have worked to make articles GA and FA quality re: use of infoboxes. These people are accused of ownership when they object to those who haven't worked on the article adding an infobox. The authors have contributed their "sweat of the brow" and without their efforts, WP would be missing many GA and FA articles. People come to WP to read the written text; they don't come here to look at the infoboxes we have; no one joins because of the "great infoboxes". We have all too many stub articles with "great infoboxes"; what's needed is good text.

Perhaps the 2013 Infobox case needs to be revisited as some of those named as involved then are back here once more. We need to either continue with infoboxes being optional and stop the overt and covert pressure on those who elect not to include them or make them mandatory for every article. I also see that 3 people were blocked when the case was opened and only 2 have been unblocked. I think it's unfair not to unblock Cassiano to allow him to speak here if he wishes. At present, he is not even allowed to use his talk page, should anyone want to ask him questions. We hope (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt says ""If those who improved the article had simply kept the tradition of almost 10 years, a service to some readers, we would not be here." This implies there's something wrong with the Olivier article because it does not have an infobox. It can also be said that if those who are vigorous about their belief that infoboxes belong on every article would not appear to have been setting edit conflicts into motion [24], "The review resulted in that. However, my personal AE (arbitrary enforcement, and I could tell you other readings) resulted in this edit was a breach of my restriction, so I can't revisit the article to say that I find this questionable. Next will be that I get called to arbitration again for this edit." [25], we would not be here. We hope (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Per the laconic Floquenbeam, all involved in this little fracas are being petty and ridiculous. Arbcom should not encourage the pettiness and ridiculousity by accepting a case. Admins should of course sanction any blatant misconduct that arises, but there's no reason to waste the community's time on this.

Having said that, I was astonished to find that User:Dreadstar is and remains an administrator. But that's properly a different case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the final sentence above. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Statement by Olive

This controversy did not begin as an infobox case. It began as a suggestion to use text in a hidden ibox that was less aggressive than what was in place, and which would not inhibit editing. Caps are generally considered shouting and a good part of this text was caps. The discussion almost immediately moved to a discussion of info boxes, a highly contentious area. That fact, along with edit warring and the tone of the discussion seems to have warranted protection which the protecting admin said he would lift if things calmed down. Ensuing discussion became at times vicious. In my opinion a locked down article would have prevented the deterioration in discussion which had become highly objectionable. An admin was taunted on the discussion page, and another tried to control the situation. Allowing the kind of abusive comments and discussion that occurred on and in relation to this page is a big problem for Wikipedia. By default control is in the hands of those who are the most uncivil since others as I did left, and those who stay are likely to become upset (possible understatement) with the situation. What the arbs can do about it, I don't know.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC))

Statement by Cavarrone

My opinion is that infoboxes could well be optional, but when even a single editor feels the use of an infobox is useful then it should be (allowed to be) included. For sure, inclusion of an infobox is NEVER detrimental to the quality of an article, and the removal of the longstanding infobox in the Olivier article was certainly not an improvement of the article per se. Furthermore, in the current case, both the general tone of the talk page discussion and the wording of the hidden text appear to be quite threatening IMO. Cavarrone 10:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

While it may be tempting to open a request, rake through contributions and dish out punishments afterwards, we're talking about potentially sanctioning some of the most prolific content editors on Wikipedia. Is all this grief and drama necessary? It appears that all that's really happened is that angry mastodons got the better of everyone (as happens once in a while) and harsh words were thrown about. And an admin retired. Not a good result, and I don't believe there's a case here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

Two article edits and 1 talk page edit do not an arbitration request make. Happy to discuss having a case named "Dreadstar" regarding his conduct generally, but see no need to respond here. Hipocrite (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:Kraxler

Reverting 6 times (contrary to the pertaining guidelines, too) and then protecting their preferred version is certainly conduct unbecoming an admin. A case looking into the behavior of User:Dreadstar should be opened, and the user having apparently retired, then ArbCom should pass a similar motion as in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Toddst1 . Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by probably uninvolved John Carter

I respectfully disagree with the esteemed arbitrator Euryalus below. This is not in my opinion a "minor candidate for WP:LAME," as I think editwarring about infoboxes in general might be one of the best possible candidates for the position of poster boy for that particular page. Infobox usage might be one of, if not the, most ridiculous objects of disagreements we can have. I know it is a rather, well, emotional, issue on perhaps both sides, and it seems in part to be based on mere aesthetics, which, considering the frankly wretched content of several of our articles, is more than a little amusing. If the arbitration could end the discussion involving this black hole of timewasting, all the better. If it can't, which I think more likely, everyone involved might have better things to do with their time, up to and including senescent drooling, all of which would be more productive than disagreements of this sort. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I have to be honest and say that I've found Dreadstar's conduct as an administrator to be a concern for quite a long time. Even though I opposed a block placed on him in 2011 for making personal attacks, I did find it worrisome that someone of his tenure would be making those sorts of underhanded remarks. His actions since then have left me with the impression that he is often too quick to act on his emotions before taking the time to think things through, which tends to further exacerbate the given situation.

As for the infoboxes case, I don't know whether it should be revisited or not. I've always found infoboxes useful, personally — they make it so that you don't have to dredge through the entirety of a page's text just to locate a few minor tidbits of information. Edit-warring over something so trivial is just ridiculous. What does the community think? If the consensus is in favour of their inclusion, then that is what we ought to uphold. Kurtis (talk) 06:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @HJ Mitchell: Are you fine with Dr. Blofeld's modified statement or do you still have a request for the clerks? --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I've told Cassianto they can email their statement to the clerks mailing list and we'll post it for them. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes II: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/2/1>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Recuse. I haven't been involved with this specific incident, but I have strong views on infoboxes topic and promised to recuse on matters involving it my election statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd really like to hear from some of the other listed parties, especially Dreadstar and SchroCat, before going further on this one. Courcelles (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline in all other respects than the motion below. This is less an infoboxes issue than an "admin behaving poorly" one, and we're dealing with that below. Courcelles (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The infobox hidden text edit war - a minor candidate for WP:LAME. Per Courcelles, awaiting input from Dreadstar in particular. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline, largely per Ritchie333. theres some poor conduct here beyond the one now-retired editor, but lets try making bygones bygones and see how this goes. The history of lame Infobox wars doesn't fill me with confidence that this will occur, but we can always revisit this if the issue returns. -- -- Euryalus (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am waiting for statements --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline this request as currently framed, but I'm open to examining the conduct of some of the editors involved in this little kerfuffle (of course, this would require a new case request). Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline. LFaraone 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline the case. I do think that Dreadstar's conduct needs to be examined, but that can be accomplished via the motion below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Roger Davies talk 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline comment It seems to me that the solution to the Infoboxes issue, which is essentially a content one, is not yet another case to look only at conduct, but a widely-advertised RFC to establish community ground rules for inclusion/exclusion. There are more than enough people commenting here to give such an RFC a flying start, especially if a little time were devoted in advance to setting up the parameters.  Roger Davies talk 06:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Recuse, as with Thruduulf. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline, as the admin behavior issue is already dealt with. As to the rest, a pond full of trout for making nuclear war over the bike shed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline as no longer required. Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Now that the motion is here, Decline. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Motion: Dreadstar desysopped

The following discussion 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.

For conduct unbecoming an administrator, namely

  1. sending an insulting e-mail to an editor he had just sanctioned,
  2. edit warring on an article and then protecting his preferred version, and
  3. lifting an arbitration enforcement block out of process,

Dreadstar (talk · contribs) is desysopped. He may regain the tools at any time via a successful request for adminship.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Support
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Unfortunate but necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Every last one of these would be worth a desysop, really. In conjunction, no other choice is possible. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. This vote is based on actions 1 and 3, because, as indicated above, I'm recused with respect to action 2. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Per 2 and 3. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. LFaraone 19:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  7.  Roger Davies talk 20:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    NE Ent Dreadstar has unilaterally reversed an arbitration action before and has already been given the benefit of the doubt.  Roger Davies talk 06:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. NativeForeigner Talk 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  10. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  11. as with Thryduulf, based on #1 and #3 DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  12. with regret that it became necessary. Dougweller (talk) 08:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  13. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

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.


Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Article titles and capitalisation

Initiated by RGloucester at 15:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by RGloucester

This matter came up at WP:AE. In responding to an AE request that I filed, Callanecc suggested that the discretionary sanctions for Manual of Style and article titles-related matters only applied directly to project space MoS and AT pages, rather than to edits to articles. He said, "And I agree that the short term, limited IBAN I quickly thought of won't solve the underlying problem; but, from my reading of the discretionary sanctions they can't be used to take the action (somewhat like Blueboar suggested) needed". This seems a bit absurd, if it is the case. These sanctions have not been used since 2012, insofar as I can see. Despite endless disputes in this area of conflict, most users are not even aware of their existence according to the standard AC/DS awareness procedure. Is the reason that they have not been used because they only apply absolutely directly to MoS and AT pages? Do these sanctions apply to edits to the article space? I would suggest from my own reading that they do. If they do not, one might as well consider revoking the sanctions, as they are not serving any purpose, and shan't do if that's what the scope was intended to be.

  • @Guerillero: If this is indeed the case, would you or other arbitrators consider a motion to amend the DS so as to include all discussions/actions in the area of conflict (MoS and AT)? Without such a motion, the DS are toothless, useless, and should be revoked. It strikes me that remedy 1.2 applies directly to the type of MoS/AT disputes that have been ongoing. It is exactly the type of remedy needed in this area, even if these discussions do not take place on AT/MoS pages. RGloucester 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Has it ended the "edit wars", or has it simply moved to them to other pages? None of these disputes have stopped. They merely continue across hundreds of scattered pages. RGloucester 21:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Callanecc

Statement by George Ho

The requestor himself, RGloucester, has been involved in article title disputes, especially with me. I would like to give you evidence, but the request is about clarification or amendment. Recently, he has been reported at WP:ANI for his actions and behavior, such as gaming the aftermath of requested moves at Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes. Well, I too am involved in such disputes without him. I have been requesting moves for a while, but I have dealt with warriors of article titles. Who is more disruptive: me for making many requests or RGloucester for his actions? If neither a clarification nor an amendment is enough, perhaps we should have a case involving the requestor himself and/or another case involving titles and capitalisation. I do want to request a case on him, but I haven't seen him going too far yet lately.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I find Callan's interpretation to be a reasonable one based on a direct reading of the scope (all pages related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, broadly construed) and a reading of the scope in context of the findings of fact. I am unsure if move discussions that relate to the article titles policy are covered by DS since the scope does not say all pages and discussions related to..., like Panderson's topic ban. What seems clear to me is that articles and the movement of articles are not placed under DS by this remedy. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe for discussions, no for page moves. If I remember correctly from when I was a clerk, the case came out of a number of disputes that raged on WP:MOS and WT:MOS in 2010-2012. The DS has ended the endless edit wars there and continues to keep the peace. To call it useless ignores this fact. Including page moves would be a massive expansion of the DS based on a single AE thread; I even have moved pages based on the MoS and haven't ended up in controversy for it. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The original case had a scope of the content of internal Wikipedia pages. The remedies were not written so as to, for instance, restrict all use of dashes and other MOS items: that would be difficult to enforce and could lead to ludicrous enforcement scenarios. I would therefore uphold the interpretation being disputed in this clarification request. AGK [•] 23:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Motions

Functionary appointments (2015)

Following the community consultation and comments phase of the process, the Arbitration Committee will now vote on the appointment of each of the candidates.

Checkuser candidates

Bbb23 (CU)

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Callanecc (CU)

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser, to continue after his term on the AUSC expires.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Courcelles (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. Obviously. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  10. AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

HJ Mitchell (CU)

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser.

Support
  1. Euryalus (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. I note that over 3/4 of the community in that discussion supported him and I don't think we can ignore that without better reasons than those given. I understand that there are some concerns raised by some about his approach but I don't agree that there is a problem that prevent him from handling the tools safely. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Strongly. AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I have some concerns about HJ Mitchell's tendency to be a bit of a "cowboy" admin—I've occasionally seen some issues with his sometimes rather brusque temperament and impulsivity that make me hesitant to grant the CU flag, as it's an area of the project that I feel benefits from a more conservative approach. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. for the same reason as GW. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Not convinced granting both flags at once is the best idea here given the community comments, and he a) shows more interest in oversight and b) admits a lack of technical expertise that is highly useful in a CU. Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Abstain
Recuse

Mike V (CU)

Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as a Checkuser.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk 06:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. AGK [•] 23:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Community comments on Checkuser voting

Oversight candidates

Bbb23 (OS)

Bbb23 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk 06:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per his reply to my question at User talk:Bbb23#Voting on functionary candidates, where Bbb23 makes it clear that he intends to do his fair share and that if he found he was using it rarely he would resign it. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per Dougweller. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. We seem agreed that this candidate is trustworthy, so either he won't use the tool often enough (if so, he's stated he'll resign or we can remove it), or he will (and there is no issue). AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Given that we really need active oversighters, I'm not inclined to appoint someone who indicated in their statement that they don't intend to use the oversight tool often. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Given his admitted intention not to use the tool much. A person who openly admits a lack of interest in using a tool shouldn't be given it. If he is willing to commit time and effort to doing OS on a regular basis, I would support a future application. Courcelles (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. per above --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per Courcelles -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. per Courcelles. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Abstain

:# At the moment. I'm going to ask him about that. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Recuse

Callanecc (OS)

Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter, to continue after his term on the AUSC expires.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Courcelles (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk 06:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  10. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

GB fan (OS)

GB fan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  5. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

HJ Mitchell (OS)

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. Though I have concerns about HJ Mitchell's checkuser candidacy, I think he would be a fine oversighter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Euryalus (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. I do trust Harry, and trust he will be a conscientious oversighter, knowing this role requires more finesse than the admin one. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  5. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. I've also seen that he's been active in bringing OS concerns through to our OTRS system so he's already quite active - letting him do it himself will speed up a process that often needs to be done as quickly as possible. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. per Dougweller DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. weakly, for the same reasons that we brought up for his CU candidacy --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Abstain
Recuse

Keilana (OS)

Keilana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. Will bring a different perspective to the OS team. Courcelles (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  4. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Euryalus2 (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Kelapstick (OS)

Kelapstick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. Courcelles (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  5. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Lankiveil (OS)

Lankiveil (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Courcelles (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  7. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Mike V (OS)

Mike V (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. I've personally received a lot of oversight requests from Mike V, and to my memory they have all required suppression. I think Mike V would be an active and valuable member of the oversight team. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. Euryalus (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Courcelles (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  7. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  8. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  9. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse
  1. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ronhjones (OS)

Ronhjones (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is appointed as an Oversighter.

Support
  1. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  2. DGG ( talk ) 22:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  4. Per consensus at community discussion,  Roger Davies talk
  5. My judgement here coincides with the community discussion also. Dougweller (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  7. AGK [•] 23:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oppose
Abstain
Recuse

Community comments on oversight voting

@Euryalus: You accidentally voted on Callanecc's OS motion twice. :) Mike VTalk 21:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
fixed NE Ent 21:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
There's probably some kind of appropriate political aphorism for when this occurs. Suffice it to say it's a sign of my esteem for Callanecc that I gave him 200% support. Or alternatively a clerical error on my part. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

General community comments

If I recall correctly from my time as an Arbitrator, the cutoff was 80% support among the Arbitrators to appoint someone as a functionary. Is that threshold being kept here, or is it the standard motion cutoff (51%)? NW (Talk) 19:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@NuclearWarfare: According to Thryduulf, it is a "simple majority".--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I have strongly disagreed with it. I do not want to see functionaries pass on 8-7 or 7-6 votes; IMO, no one who can't command at least the confidence of 2/3rds of the Committee should not be appointed to these sensitive roles. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I'll pitch in here and say exactly the same thing; watering down the level of arbitrator support to far below what would be acceptable in a community election isn't a great way to garner community respect for the new appointees. In fact, I'm rather concerned that the rules seem to have changed in the middle of the selection process, both in the on-wiki voting and in the level of support that candidates must achieve. If those had been the rules at the outset of the selection process, there might well have been a different group of candidates. Risker (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
My view is that we have a policy on votes that we must follow. It's at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Forms of proceeding and states that "Decisions are reached by a majority vote of active, non-recused arbitrators." And all through this, until a day or two ago, I don't recall anyone ever raising any suggestion that there were any other 'rules' that should be applied (nor could they be without a policy change). I've been assuming all along that it was only a majority that was required, and from my perspective a change to anything else is what would amount to a change in the rules in the middle of a process. Remember a number of us are new and are simply assuming policy applies. It does appear that past appointments didn't follow arbitration policy, but that's irrelevant here. If this is to be changed, then it will need an amendment to policy. Now's not the time for that obviously. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Risker, I can definitely see your point about the 50+1 vs 70 or 80. There has been no actual decision from the committee saying it's one way or the other, people are just assuming based on policy. Well if there was ever a time to apply IAR, it's now. Precedent has run with the higher numbers in the past, and we should continue that. @Dougweller: if you voted for the change in "rules" for the onwiki voting, like I did, I really don't understand your comment that we shouldn't be changing the rules in the middle of the process.
That said though, for Risker's second point re. on-wiki voting, while we did change things in the middle of the process, I think it should be a welcomed change. The Arbitration Committee is providing more transparency, something it doesn't do very often. It would have been the best to leave this for a process change after, but the next vote it would affect would likely be next year at the earliest, so it made sense to implement the change now, and it doesn't really affect anything in the actual process, just a location for the discussion. So that I will have to disagree, as it's not a bad change. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It was more an announcement of a 'rule' towards the end of a process, and something, IMHO, much more crucial than voting transparently on-wiki. We would need to think carefully about higher numbers, do we want to set a higher bar for non-Arbs getting these tools than Arbs? Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No. If the committee says before it starts a process: we're going to do X, it should do X. That's transparency. Or, as the adage goes: say what you mean, do what you say. NE Ent 15:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
That's another form of transparency. Like I said above, it would have been nice to do it before process, but since the discussion started in the middle, it wasn't possible to do it before. Could we have left it? Yes. Are you guys asking for us to not have been transparent at all, or is the change welcome, and it's just a timing issue? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It's not fair to the candidates to change the process mid-stream; they applied with the belief that arbitrators would hold their discussions about them privately, and now instead they are being discussed and voted on publicly by the arbitrators, something they didn't expect when putting forth their candidacy. –xenotalk 16:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. The timing. To be blunt, if the committee feels it's appropriate to tell the community it's going to do something a certain way, and not follow through, it reflects poorly on its integrity. NE Ent 16:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with xeno that it's unfair to change the process midstream. If you want to represent yourselves as a more transparent Arbcom then that's great, but it's completely disrespectful, not to mention ironic, to the candidates and the community to change the review process without a word to anyone outside of your private discussions. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 04:25, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between Abstain and Recuse? NE Ent 20:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Abstain: To not vote for or against a specific individual by choice Recuse: due to a personal relationship or other conflict of interest, not voting for or against an individual. NativeForeigner Talk 20:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Same as in general Arbitration Committee votes: abstention indicates that one does not wish to register a vote; recuse is a bit stronger in that there is some sort of conflict of interest with the candidate. Recused parties are expected not to comment on the candidates at all, publicly or privately, to avoid influencing the votes. In terms of the final result, there's no real difference, as neither affects the tally other than by changing the number of votes required for a majority. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Process question

2015 appointment process says: said: "The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before finalizing an internal resolution, at which point the appointments will be published." Doesn't "internal" mean "not onwiki"? NE Ent 10:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Edited for clarity. NE Ent 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Corrected. NE Ent 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That is how it was done in the past (in camera); it looks like it's been changed - which is probably a good thing; transparency and all - but the onwiki voting and commenting might not have been expected by the candidates. –xenotalk 12:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
The announced process hasn't changed -- the link is to the current (2015) page. NE Ent 12:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
But the actual process has... –xenotalk 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed the minor housekeeping change. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Re [26]

Before

The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before finalizing an internal resolution, at which point the appointments will be published. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

After

The committee shall review all the comments submitted and other relevant factors before voting on a motion. When the motion is done, the appointments will be formally published on the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard. The successful candidates will be required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation prior to receiving the permissions.

Is it the opinion of the entire committee that that is a "minor houskeeping change"? NE Ent 15:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My goodness no. The process was changed, and the edit was a formality of that change. That's why the edit itself, not the change, I said was a minor housekeeping change. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I see that an internal resolution also only calls for an absolute majority, so we have that in two places, our procedures and our policy. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


  • "When the motion done" >> "When the motion is done"? (although I prefer "After voting on the motion has completed"... because the "motion" itself does not actually perform any actions.) — Ched :  ?  17:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Fix was made on the original already -- updated the copy above. NE Ent 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is more transparency seen as a problem? Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement


Supreme Deliciousness

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Supreme Deliciousness

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Cptnono (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 19:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA - specifically the neutral point of view reminder (4)

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

SupremeDeliciousness has a history of highlighting the occupation throughout Wikipedia while doing little else for the project. I understand that we need to assume good faith and that being a single purpose account is not inherently a bad thing. However, he has shown that his bias negatively affects the topic area.

The editor's clear agenda and tendency to edit war are more nuanced than usually seen at AE. I had a hard time thinking of how to "prove" this and decided to look at every 50th edit (just selected next page in the history screen) the other day. It was surprising how many were reverts. Many edits are factually accurate but I hope this shows that there might be an attempt to put undue focus on the occupation:

  • Reverting (an IP) to highlight the occupation[27]
  • Reverting (an IP) regarding the terminology of occupied land[28]
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed status[29]
  • Reverting (an IP) to highlight the disputed status [30]
  • Highlighting the occupation[31]
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed land[32]
  • Reverting (a IP) about Israel[33]
  • Highlighting the occupation. It doesn't neccasarily smack of POV pushing but it is part of the sample size[34]
  • Reverting to limit the visibility of Hebrew on a food article (a surprisingly common form of POV pushing in the topic area)[35]


The above is not indicative of a problematic editor on its own. Below I attempt to show that SupremeDeliciousess has an over reliance on the revert function. It takes two to tango, of course. I also understand that it can be hard to not revert IPs in the topic area and how easy it is to assume every red named editor is a sock.

  • 2014 kidnapping and murder of Israeli teenagers, 4 reverts since March 1 inserting "occupied". No talk page use.[36][37][38][39]
  • Open University of Israel, 5 reverts since February 24 regarding a conviction. Other party later turned out to be a sock but hindsight isn't an excuse.[40][41][42][43][44]
  • Northern District (Israel), 7 reverts since January 29 regarding legality of Israel's control. Again, what would eventually turn out to be a sock, but there is still a ridiculous amount of reverts with little initial conversation besides edit summaries.[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]
  • Israeli cuisine, 3 reverts in 9 days in February regarding Israeli adoption of Arab cuisine. Possible sock? Talk page could have still been used more.[52][53][54]


For the sake of transparency and to show more possible POV-pushing the following is a current dispute I am involved in.

  • A controversy section that I feel promotes undue weight of a minor incident at Tourism of Israel (not neccasarily a politically based page) was added. His first reaction was to revert removal. It is now tagged and being discussed.[55]
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

These issues have been going on for years and this is simply a snapshot of recent behavior. SupremeDeliciousness has always made sure not to cross the line too far, which I suppose is a good thing. My frustration leads me to want to request a topic ban but I don't know if that is even appropriate. I believe the editor needs to be counseled by a level headed admin and that a prohibition on reverts should be considered.

I kind of expected blow back and a lengthy discussion but was really hoping it would just be cool. Yes, I have filthy disgusting hands. Yes, SD refuses to even consider that the editing has been an issue. We don't need multiple editors attacking or defending this like sharks. The gus is pushing a POV. ANI is not the appropriate venue to ask for help. Can we just get some level-headed peeps to point him in a better direction. Basically: don't comment unless you want to discuss making the topic area better.Cptnono (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion here about the temple mount has further illustrated the concerns. Ymblanter brings up a point that many editors and readers consider. Supreme Deliciousness has not only reverted 3 times since December without once using the talk page, his edit summaries here are dismissive of even the suggestion that it can be addressed. As others have noted, it is not internationally recognized as Israel while Ymblanter points out that it is controlled and functions as Israel. That is a content issue but the complete unwillingness to look into different wording while reverting multiple times is a behavioral problem.Cptnono (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

C'mon, Nableezy. This isn't a problem with new editors.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What a joke. Keeping inline with a less than stellar history for the topic area, this conversation is devolving into bickering and pretty lame accusations of POV pushing. Two admins at least see the prospect that more discussion is a good thing. I really don't care if it is an admonishment listed at the sanctions page or simple advice. If Supreme Deliciousness continues to edit as he has been then we will just be back here (looks like he has already made friends at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Or maybe he'll get that his behavior is compounding the concerns of an already partisan area. You guys should feel free to close this out and hopefully we won't see you soon.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"account for yourself"? If you can;t even understand my original post than you shouldn't be responding to it.Cptnono (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

These edit summaries are enough for me to say close this. No adult likes to be lectured but SD was in need of it. If he feels that he should "continue with the exact same kind of edits brought up here"[56] and that an admin who considered a warning (without even an official sanction) has "repeatedly made it clear to everyone that [Ymblanter] no idea what [Ymblanter] are talking about"[57] then I assume he will dig his own grave. This behavior isn't new. Maybe this will be one of a long line of complaints against an editor who is here to better the project_as long as it is inline with his agenda. Close this out and I look forward to another (hopefully less shitty) conversation in a couple weeks when he does it again.Cptnono (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is Malik commenting in the admin section? He is involved in the topic area. Furthermore, why is this still open? We will see how Supreme Deliciousness does. He said that he will not make any changes and I'm curious to see how that improves the project. We have all of the time in the world to sit back and edit.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Supreme Deliciousness

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Please take a closer look at the diffs Cptnono has provided above:

  • [59], The West bank is occupied so there is nothing wrong with calling it that.
  • [60], an IP showed up and claimed that the Ariel University in the West bank is in Israel. I reverted this false edit..... why is this being brought up in an enforcement against me?
  • [61], same as above, East Jerusalem is by the entire international community rejected as Israel, so my edit is 100% accurate.
  • [62], an IP showed up and changed a sentence to "in the Israeli Golan Heights.", There is no such thing. Israeli claims are rejected by the international community. My edit is 100% accurate.
  • [63], the text is about Hezbollah attacking an IDF unit. I believe it is important to point out to the reader that it happened on occupied lands and not in Israel.
  • [64]. 100% accurate edit. Temple mount is not in Israel.
  • [65]. An IP showed up and reverted me with the edit summary: "Reverted racist vandal Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness wrote anti-Semitic propaganda at User_talk:Supreme_Deliciousness/Archives/2014/October#Birthright_Unplugged claiming that Jewish history is fake." This IP was later blocked by admin.[66]. As his revert was illegitimate, I undid his revert. I also discussed at the talkpage:[67].
  • [68]. The map is now changed but it used to show the Golan as striped brown. So thats why I did that edit.
  • [69]. Arak is an Arabic language name. It is not a Hebrew name. Therefore the Hebrew translation is unrelated and does not belong in the lead, the same why we dont have Chinese or Russian translation for Arak. I have brought this up at the talkpage: [70]


Concerning the reverts I have done. All of them or the vast majority of them are me reverting disruption by the sockupuppet "I invented "it's not you, it's me", who is a sock of NoCal100.: [71], Or me reverting other IPs and newly registered accounts (likely other socks), who show up to revert me without any discussion at all. Its hard to edit in this kind of environment. At Open University of Israel, Northern District (Israel) (both articles where the sock was reverting me) and Israeli cuisine I also participated at the talkpages.[72], [73], [74].

I would also like to point out that Cptnono comes here with unclean hands, take a look at this:[75] Cptnono make a revert with the edit summary: "Since SD did not answer my reasoning and then another editor made m point for me I am reverting. I likely would not have reverted if it didn't turn into an edit war. I want to play too"

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Re:[76] Ymblanter, a warning for what? The Temple Mount is not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Re:[77], Ymblanter, you are wrong. The Temple Mount like all of East Jerusalem is not in Israel. It is not recognized as Israel by one single country in the entire world. To claim that it is, is a clear npov violation which is a Wikipedia policy. The Temple Mount article also makes it clear that Israel is occupying it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Re:[78], Ymblanter, how can you possibly say: "I do not promote a minority POV" while at the same time claiming East Jerusalem is in Israel? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Re:[79], I would like to make clear that I don't believe I have done anything wrong and if any admin wants to warn me about something Ive done, he has to explain to me what Ive done and how it was wrong, so far I have not seen that. All my edits brought up here are in accordance with the Five Pillars. So I'm going to continue with the exact same kind of edits brought up here, as the entire enforcement brought up by Cptnono is frivolous, baseless and invalid. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Re:[80], Ymblanter, you have now repeatedly made it clear to everyone that you have no idea what you are talking about. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Greyshark09

The problem with Supreme Deliciousness is that it is a single topic account: Supreme's only interest is ARBPIA topics (and to a lesser degree SCWGS) - most notably the status of various borders and territories disputed by Syria and Palestine with Israel. His emotional attachment to the topic forces him to go to extremes in his "righteous" fight against the other opinion... which is the typical danger sign of Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. This might have not been a problem in some cases, but Supreme has repeatedly caused mayhem in English Wikipedia and in Commons, being blocked on Commons and on English wiki and warned every now and then. There might be a serious problem of accepting community consensus and NPOV concepts by Supreme, as I can recall two cases of problematic edit-warring on his behalf - one on Quneitra Governorate article, aiming to enforce an opinion in contrary to the community consensus, and another on Syrian Civil War maps - as well blatantly going against the consensus a number of times (later fixed at this discussion).GreyShark (dibra) 21:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What community consensus and NPOV concepts have I not accepted? I never violated this consensus that was closed by an admin:[81]. And the last link you linked to is not a consensus, it was a heavily involved editor who was editing articles according to the same pov as you who closed the discussion. So his "closure" is not a real closure and his claims of a "consensus" is a joke. Any uninvolved editor who reads the discussion can clearly see that his "closure" comments is not the real outcome of the discussion. I was just made aware of this actually and I have left a new message at the talkpage:[82]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Update: Just a couple of minutes after I posted at the ISIL talkpage that the discussion closure by heavily involved user:Legacypac was inaccurate, another user agreed with me: [83], (Please read his comment). This is the so called "community consensus" that "I have not accepted" according to Greyshark. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
SD, there is a clear case of violating a community consensus sealed by an administrator - the Quneitra Governorate article, where you have been devoted to restore a map version (3 October 2013, 13 October 2013) of Golan during 1944-1967 (as part of Syria) despite the fact that the administrator ruled on September 27 to show it as dashed as WP:NPOV. This is a highly problematic behavior in my view.GreyShark (dibra) 18:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You have misrepresented the community consensus. The admin said "Closing per a request at WP:ANRFC. Consensus was that the different color, hatched version (i.e. File:Syria location map3.svg) should be used in light of events related to the occupation of this particular region of Syria. However, Huon's comments regarding context are worth careful consideration. Articles not closely related these events may not require a map version with a different color. It is, therefore, worthwhile to discuss usage of File:Syria location map3.svg on a case-by-case basis if there is any signifigant objection to its relevance on Syria-related articles." The Quneitra Governorate article is not about the Israeli occupation of Syria. And the map is not about the occupation. The map is to show the boundaries of Quneitra Governorate. Nothing else. The previous map had removed the entire Israeli occupied part of the Governorate. There is no consensus for that kind of falsehood anywhere. What is astonishing is you attempting to ad that kind of false map into wikipedia and then falsely claiming I was "violationg community consensus". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by IRISZOOM

There is a big problem when it comes to Israeli-occupied territories as some wants to put it "in Israel", though the world rejects that view (even Israel too when it comes to the West Bank excluding East Jerusalem) and view it as occupied. There is a clear consensus on this, also reflected on Wikipedia, and it's only good to remove such NPOV violations. As the world think the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights are occupied territories, saying they are "Israeli" or "in Israel" is unacceptable. I myself, and many other editors in this area, often have to remove such things, and this can't be seen as something negative.

Regarding Greyshark09's point about the Golan Heights issue, it was actually only the RFC at Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 26 (started in December 2014 and closed in January 2015) which solved the issue if the Golan Heights should be mentioned. As can be seen at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel#Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps, a new discussion was started there in August 2014 because it wasn't clear on how to resolve the issue as it, contrary to the claim, hadn't been solved. I can recall Greyshark09 himself making changes to that same issue on his own, such as changing to "Disputed areas" here (in fact, it takes the Israeli view that the areas are only disputed and not occupied, while there later was a consensus to not mention the area at all), though there were no consensus for that. So I think Greyshark09 should be cautious to criticize Supreme Deliciousness on this issue. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually the discussion closed in January 2015 did not solve anything. Please see my posts above. It was a heavily involved editor (user:Legacypac) who closed the discussion, and he closed it according to a false "consensus" that anyone who reads the discussion can clearly see does not exist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The Old City of Jerusalem is not in Israel and that is how we have treated it Wikipedia too. --IRISZOOM (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

(involved administrator) I did not review all of the diffs provided here, but I looked at many of them and it is clear what is going on. The Israel-Palestine part of Wikipedia is under continuous assault by people (usually IPs or SPAs) who just want to insert their political positions. Common themes are to insert "in Israel" into articles about places not in Israel (including places that Israel does not claim to be in Israel), to remove mention of the military occupation, or to gratuitously remove the word "Palestine". Every day there are multiple such edits, and the people who do it obviously know exactly what they are doing. The principles have been discussed countless times in talk pages and project pages and anyone who wants to reopen the discussion is able to do so. Meanwhile, one of the boring daily chores required for article maintenance is to sweep away the dross that appeared overnight. It is certain not beholden on good editors to start a new discussion every time someone comes past and makes the same old unacceptable edits over again. Zerotalk 01:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: I urge you to not issue a warning regarding the Temple Mount edit. It would be an unwarranted interference in a normal content dispute. If you want to be involved in the discussion of such content questions, you are welcome to join us, however it would be extremely unfortunate if you used your position on this board to promote one minority POV at the expense of others. Zerotalk 22:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: There is a consensus over all of the Israel-Palestine area of Wikipedia that we do not state in Wikipedia's voice that places are in Israel when only Israel claims them to be. What we do is note both the Israeli claim and the contrary international position. I don't know if this was the topic of a centralised discussion somewhere (I'm no good at remembering such things) but the fact of the consensus should be clear to most editors working in the area. I don't know how someone "points to" this consensus, but I do know that everyone experienced in the area would have understood the reason for SD's edit without needing to be told for the umpteenth time, since similar things happen every day. They are so common that an appropriate edit-summary would be "yawn". What will happen if you warn SD on account of this edit is that the few editors who are intent on pushing an Israeli POV contrary to consensus will be emboldened to push harder and will start using your warning as a stick against anyone who opposes them. I'm confident that you are not motivated to support a minority POV, but that is what the effect of a warning would be in practice. Also, I wonder if you noticed that the edit in question was almost 3 months ago, which is nearly always old enough to be considered stale on this board. Zerotalk 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:: some comments.

  1. You gave the reason "For all practical purposes, Temple Mount is in Israel" in the first sentence of your justification. That is, you gave your personal opinion on the content. Then you again stated your opinion on content, that "no person who has been there would ever believe" that "East Jerusalem is not in Israel". Once you express personal opinions that favor one side of a content dispute, you shouldn't be surprised if people misconstrue your intentions.
  2. Although there is indeed a consensus that Wikipedia's voice should not say that East Jerusalem is in Israel, no such consensus was required for SD's edit. Wikipedia must not say "East Jerusalem is in Israel", but only report it as the opinion of identified parties, because NPOV demands it. We don't need a consensus to edit according to policy. To put it another way, writing "EJ is in Israel" is not equivalent to not writing it. One expresses a minority opinion and the other expresses no opinion. There is no symmetry between inserting an NPOV violation and removing it.
  3. You are quite correct that we should have a page that describes the consensus clearly, but you are mistaken in judging that experienced editors don't want one. Actually we would love to have one. The problem is that making such pages is like pulling teeth; see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem and consider that all of that long tedious discussion was over a few sentences in one article. But still you can read the discussion there and check that although a few people wanted those sentences to state that (all of) Jerusalem is in Israel, the wording finally agreed does not make that statement. It is very near to the proof of consensus that you ask for. Zerotalk 10:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Rhoark (uninvolved)

Edits related to the control or status of territories are a recurring theme, but Deliciousness' versions seem to be those with better sourcing or specificity, not reflective of a pattern of POV pushing. Being a SPA is not a problem; someone has to do the work. I'd semiprotect the whole topic area. Rhoark (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AcidSnow

I have yet to see Deliciousness do anything wrong. AcidSnow (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

I'll intrude here. SD's reply to Umblanter's remark about the Temple Mount is absolutely correct, and generally practiced editors on all sides tend to avoid pulling one way or another on this. The waqf administering the site is in Jordan, and Israel always negotiates directly with Jordan on issues regarding that site. Ymblanter's statement is the Israeli POV, of course, not a statement of some unambiguous fact, esp. since a leading authority Ian S. Lustick has shown that Israel, contrary to numerous statements, official and otherwise, has not even used the instrument of formal annexation to assert its control of East Jerusalem.Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC) [Moved from #Statement by Supreme Deliciousness // coldacid (talk|contrib) 17:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)]

'Ymblanter points out that it is controlled and functions as Israel.' No. He said it was in Israel. It isn't, and Israel never acts as if it had sovereign control over it. Israelis there, unlike Israelis in Israel proper, are subject to specific restrictions, even halakhic restrictions. A good deal of the Camp David discussions of 2000 spun round the issue of sovereignty, where Israel's position was that it receive powers and standing equal to that of Palestine'. No government exercising sovereignty negotiates to receive it, or share it, unless it thinks the other side has equally good claims.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Umblanter. I didn't accuse you, and if it appears that I did, it certainly was not my intention of doing so, and I apologize for any misunderstanding. Language, with its inevitable POv implications, is a crucial concern esp. to these areas, and definitional statements are, optimally, rigorously measured to ensure that neutrality is secured. No one can expect any editor to have at his fingertips all these niceties (in a brutal topic area). My intervention was merely aimed at clarifying an ambiguity that some editors might have taken as an endorsement of one POV. As to the merits of the case, I have withheld comment.Nishidani (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I seem to be the only one who thinks that the editing standards in the area do not conform to the Five Pillars

You're not alone. I think that would be endorsed by editors lranging from Cptnono and User:Zero0000, and even by disreputable people like myself. Indeed, many editors here have long pleaded, to no avail, for stricter rules or stricter administrative oversight, in this area to ensure that the Five Pillars don't collapse. It is argued that admins have given up on the area, in a shared annoyance with what are wrongly identified as 'both sides'. Go figure.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

is a kingpin of a small but very assertive group of partisan SPAs in this topic area that are clearly only, or mainly, here for WP:ADVOCACY and to right what they perceive as WP:GREATWRONGS in Palestine.

If you,AnotherNewAccount, have evidence for this rubbishy insinuation, which construes efforts to get parity of representation in the I/P area, gather it and place it before this board. WP:NPOV is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. The assumption in that tirade is that there is only one significant narrative, and any tweaking of that to incorporate the other side is disruptive ('general long term effort by this group to marginalize the Israeli position' = there is just 'the Israeli position', apart from stone-throwers). Please stop repeating the meme, or document it. I'm rather tired of seeing this offensive whispering at AE disputes.Nishidani (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

I'm sorry, but Ymblanter (talk · contribs) is flat wrong here. And that is a content matter, not a conduct one. But on the content, the Temple Mount is not located in Israel, it's located in East Jerusalem, part of the occupied Palestinian territories, a place that nearly the entire world agrees is not in Israel. That removal by SD is completely valid, and to sanction, or warn, him for it would be an admin enforcing a view on the content of an article. I thought that was a no-no. nableezy - 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

And further, regarding that edit, that category was added and broke long-standing consensus on leaving country categories out and instead just having the Category:Mountains of Jerusalem and other Jerusalem specific categories. That is the compromise, and Cptnono's post above ignores that. Instead of having an edit-war between those who would label it a hill of Palestine (or Palestinian territories or whatever) vs those who would label it a hill of Israel we had this and any number of other articles include just the city category. Look at the category structure going back to [2011, or 2012, or 2013, or 2014. That's been the consensus, and despite Cptnono's one-sided representation of what occurred, none of the people who have on occasion re-added the Israel category has made any comment on the talk page to justify their attempt to go against a long-standing consensus. nableezy - 21:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
From WP:CON: Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. I think I demonstrated that over several years this formulation has been stable and implicitly has consensus. Regarding for all practical purposes, yes you did say that. However that still isn't accurate. The Temple Mount is controlled by Israel, held by Israel, occupied by Israel, but saying in Israel goes well past that and SD's edit is well-justified, both on the merits and based on WP policy. East Jerusalem is not in Israel, regardless of what a person who has been there believes. It is occupied by Israel, and while on Wikipedia that may be a controversial thing to say, it is not at all controversial for any serious source. It is the users that are trying to overturn years' long consensus that need to make a new one, and sanctioning a user for an edit that is both factually correct and in keeping with consensus is not fair, for all practical purposes for the meaning of the word fair. nableezy - 15:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And who said anything about new users? nableezy - 15:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me why its okay for an admin to make a statement that emphatically does endorse a minority POV, fringe one might even say, and threaten to take administrative action in furtherance of that view, and then say whoever objects to that is a POV pusher? How exactly is that allowed here? nableezy - 19:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Ymblanter: new users are of course welcome to edit in this area -- but if they edit in ways that go against long-standing consensus, their edits are likely to be reverted. The edits by SD that did so were not misconduct -- quite the contrary. If you see matters differently in regard to whether adding the category would be appropriate, you are also of course welcome to participate in discussions on the topic, at the relevant article talk-pages. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

There are certain long-term (uneasy) agreements in the I/P area, which AFAIK, Supreme Deliciousness has fully complied with. Each of these long-term agreements should have been on one page, I agree, but mostly they have been worked out over many, many pages over many years. One I´m very familiar with, is "depopulated village" for the List of Arab towns and villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus. The "Palestinian side" prefer "ethically cleansed villages" (see this web-site, as an example), while official Israeli sources always talks about "abandoned villages". (Like "Deir Yassin was abandoned"). We have come to an uneasy truce, by using "depopulated", a word no side loves, but all sides can live with. You have "teach newcomers" all the time, so you have a little bit at here, and a little bit there, and some even at a DYK-nom., etc, etc. With genuine new editors this is normally not a problem. The problem is the myriads of banned socks, and the partisan old-timers that don´t like the compromise and want to impose "their right version" on some article. The former needs to be reversed, the latter needs to be ignored (or WP:BOOMERANGed) when they file WP:AE complaints against those follow who the consensus. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

I post this with some trepidation, as there is a hostile atmosphere on this subject. I am on the fence regarding the AE request itself, but I believe the following needs to be said and noted. Most of it falls out of the scope of this AE, but I believe action must be taken forward elsewhere, perhaps in a topic-wide RfC. I fully agree with Ymblanter (talk · contribs) that "the editing standards in the area do not conform to the Five Pillars."

I can see exactly what Cptnono (talk · contribs) and others are saying. Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is a kingpin of a small but very assertive group of partisan SPAs in this topic area that are clearly only, or mainly, here for WP:ADVOCACY and to right what they perceive as WP:GREATWRONGS in Palestine. They seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands to write, research, discuss, consult sources, and, less positively, to argue, edit-war, use and misuse procedures, including resorting to AE (or the threat of AE) and other measures in order to impose their point of view, and as a result they have managed to skew the encyclopedia substantially in this topic area over the long term.

I have made half-hearted attempts over the months to reverse a little bit of the bias (usually the more off-piste stuff) but in the handful of times I've tried I have been burned. I don't care about the subject matter so it doesn't twist my nose out of joint, but I would like to be able to read about it without coming across a piece of jarring propaganda - an "ideological rock" if you like - tossed by one of these SPAs and intended, not to inform the reader, but to prejudice them against the subject of the article. Several of the edits Cptnono complained about above are just such edits.

There is a general long term effort by this group to marginalize the Israeli position in favour of the position of "the World" or the "international community" or "international law", which they consider to be more favourable to their cause. Underpinning this is a bogus consensus they've generated amongst themselves that the Israeli position is invariably WP:FRINGE and it is therefore acceptable to dismiss it entirely or relegate it to passing mentions. Ymblanter is correct. For all practical purposes the Temple Mount is in Israel and as things stand, the "international view" is a diplomatic and legal fiction, and I believe articles should not be so distorted to comply with it.

Removing the Temple Mount from an Israel-related category is but another small advance in the ongoing Israel-Palestine Wikipedia "POV-kampf". Labels such as "Israeli-occupied" may very well be the view of the international community, but unlike Wikipedia, the international community does not have a NPOV policy, and in this particular case, I prefer more neutral term "Israeli-controlled".

Most of the "clear consensus'" being talked about here are also entirely illusory, having been imposed by these very same assertive SPAs. Views of dissenters are shouted down, or dismissed, sometimes rudely, and sometimes with accusations of bad faith or sockpuppetry, etc.

I'll address an incident I was involved in some days ago. I edited the article Ariel University in good faith, to remove a blatant inaccuracy, based on a very creative reading of a tertiary source, that the university is "in Palestine". This is misleading for a variety of reasons. It turns out my edit turned out to be in effect a revert of one of Supreme Deliciousness' edits (actually itself a revert, unsurprisingly). Another user then reverts my edit, the edit summary coming close to implying that I was a sock. Rather insulted, I revert back - the first time I have ever "reverted in anger" on this account since I created it a couple of years ago. This user then demanded I revert my edit, as technically, my edit had violated 1RR. I believe this demand constituted an abuse of the 1RR procedure, exploited to stonewall attempts to ensure accuracy and NPOV and to "lock" the article into "their" status quo.

It turns out that this has been a long term bone of contention on that article. Reading the talk page discussion, the key reasons that Ariel University is "in Palestine" are as follows:

  • One user turned out to be a sock.
  • One user was eventually topic-banned.
  • Dissenting user Brewcrewer (talk · contribs) was deemed to be "talking bollocks" on the matter.

I note that the same SPAs so irked by the idea of a disputed site being placed "in Israel", are more than happy to argue aggressively that another similarly disputed site is "in Palestine".

This goes far beyond a single complaint against a single SPA. A huge problem here is that, barring a handful of acrimonious ARBCOM interventions, Wikipedia has never really thrashed out a comprehensive topic-wide editorial policy in the topic area in question, relying on article-by-article understandings among a small group of highly active editors, and mistakenly taken to constitute "consensus".

It needs to decide if the Temple Mount is indeed "in Israel" or if Ariel University is indeed "in Palestine". It needs to decide if the Israeli presence in the territories should be labelled "occupied" at every mention, whether a more neutral term should be found. I have my doubts that this could come about from "consensus-building" in each and every article, and the inflamed passions on both sides complicates things immensely. Admins will at least need to mediate wielding a big stick if they are to be at all successful.

Ultimately though, Wikipedia needs to stop sweeping the deep-rooted problems in the topic area under the bureaucratic carpet because if it doesn't, the topic will continue to be a WP:BATTLEGROUND for partisan SPAs, malicious socks and other types, and the encyclopedia and its content will continue to be far weaker for it. AnotherNewAccount (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I see nothing at all wrong in what SD did anywhere.

But I will give free unasked advice to AnotherNewAccount since some people say their might be a problem for newcomers in this area.

If you want to edit in this area, you need to

  • Develop a thick skin
  • Preferably your only comment on the talk page should not be saying that all the previous discussion was like a "lunatic asylum" and "childish rubbish" and that you prefer to avoid talk pages for this reason. Instead, discuss why X is wrong and your revert is better. If you make the edit after leaving a comment like that, don't be surprised if you get reverted. Kingsindian  20:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by GregKaye

There have been issues in which I have regarded Supreme Deliciousness to be a tendentious editor but I think his actions fade to nothing in comparison to other editors involved. Please can involved editors take boomerang into serious consideration. My only moderate concern, that I specifically remember, was with the pursuit of Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Incorrect closure of previous discussion concerning map. A fair procedural point was raised but on an issue, which I think the text of the thread makes clear, was a non issue.

I'll copy text from above and add comment:

  • Reverting (an IP) to highlight the occupation[84] Editor: 192.115.132.230 had disrupted the article by removing factual reference to occupation. SD reverted
  • Reverting (an IP) regarding the terminology of occupied land[85] Editor: 109.67.159.7 had disrupted the article by removing internationally recognised reference to the West Bank. SD reverted
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed status[86] Editor WarKosign had disrupted the article by WP:ASSERTing that an East Jerusalem site was in Israel even though s/he knows that Jerusalem Law was internationally declared null and void
  • Reverting (an IP) to highlight the disputed status [87] Editor: 82.166.113.164 had disrupted the article by asserting that the Golan heights were Israeli
  • Highlighting the occupation[88] SD adds (bold) "Israel conducted an airstrike on a convoy in the Syrian controlled part of Golan Heights, killing six Hezbollah members and at least one IRGC officer. In response, on January 28, Hezbollah fired missiles at Israeli convoy in the Israeli-occupied Shebaa farms, killing two soldiers." This seems to me to be factual.
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed land[89] Editor Debresser had prehaps made an unwitting error of presenting the Temple Mount as one of the Hills of Israel. This would have been fair if the reference was to something like "hills of Biblical Israel". The same cannot be asserted in modern times.
  • Reverting (a IP) about Israel[90] Editor: 630852928 had added, I think, a WP:SOAP content " "Birthright Israel" program, whose name and organization are founded upon the idea that Jews have the right to visit their ancestral homeland". SD reverted this back to "Israel".
  • Highlighting the occupation. It doesn't neccasarily smack of POV pushing but it is part of the sample size[91] This relates to the periferral TEND that I think arguably applies to SD's editing. When the Golan Heights constitutes less than 1% of Syrian territory I do not see limited relevance in highlighting this on Syrian Civil War maps. There is certainly no justification on ISIL related maps.
  • Reverting to limit the visibility of Hebrew on a food article (a surprisingly common form of POV pushing in the topic area)[92] an addition of Hebrew: ערק‎ had been made on the basis that the drink is produced in Israel in a variety of forms. IMO SD's removal of the text is arguably justified if the word has its origins in Arabic.

...inserting "occupied"... Cptnono has neglected to mention that reference here is to the fair description of "the occupied West Bank"

...5 reverts since February 24 regarding a conviction... to be discovered SP editor: I invented "it's not you, it's me" added (the bold): "Samir Kuntar, former member of the Palestine Liberation Front who was convicted of murder/who was convicted by Israel of the murder of a 4 year old girl by smashing her skull/and convicted murderer" neglecting to round the statement by saying something like ".. by/according to Israeli courts"

...7 reverts since January 29 regarding legality of Israel's control... The edit that SD reverted to proclaimed was "The Golan Heights has been run as a sub-district of the North District of Israel since the 1981 Golan Heights Law was passed, although its de jure annexation is not internationally recognized, and the unenforced United Nations Security Council Resolution 497 declared the annexation invalid." Basically the edit could have been interpreted to say that, "while the annexation was in law, the international community (bunch of buffoons) hadn't got round to giving recognition". IMO, this was unacceptable and a balancing edit was certainly warranted.

Israeli cuisine, 3 reverts... Editor: Infantom had made, IMO, three clearly disruptive edits. This is so ridiculous its akin to book burning. There should not be an editing out of culture and cultural influences.

Greyshark09 there is no problem with having a single topic account as long as the result is NPOV. If anything SD's edits have had more effect to restore NPOV than anything else by far.

Cptnono PLEASE account for yourself. Everything here, as far as I can see, has been an utter waste of everyone's time.

Note to admin - I think some measure of topic block would be in order here to give the editor time to consider this situation. If the accusations are sincere they demonstrate a utter lack of understanding of NPOV. Please also consider action against the various of the editors that SD reverted. GregKaye 14:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Ymblanter, I honestly think that you are completely out of line to push the view (especially in the "Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness" section where it can't be readily challenged) that, "For all practical purposes, Temple Mount is in Israel, ..." Perhaps you discount a UN resolution that declared Jerusalem Law to be "null and void" to be impractical. You assert that "... removing the category means deteriorating encyclopedic quality". Wouldn't you consider that another way to build encyclopaedic quality would be to have, perhaps, a Category:Hills of modern Israel and, say, Category:Hills of Israel in the United Kingdom period? Even after SD corrected you on the facts of the matter you still asserted, " then the revert should explicitly point to the consensus and not state that East Jerusalem is not in Israel (which no person who has been there would ever believe)" and, again, you did this in a point in the text where regular editors cannot respond. I lived in Israel on and off for five years and the view presented is perfectly reasonable. The alternate POV is that no person .. would ever believe that after being granted a limited amount of land by UN mandate, that the "Jewish State" as mentioned in the partition plan, would then take and occupy large quantities of additional land through various conflicts and not withdraw back to the planned parameters and claim, against international outrage, various territories as its own. Please try to see why asserting a view that is roundly rejected by the international community is pushing POV. I would also advise you to review your position as an administrator. In both your assertion of POV and the context in which you have done it, I do not think that your conduct here has been right. GregKaye 15:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Supreme Deliciousness

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Unarchived. T. Canens (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • On many of these issues there are plausible arguments on both sides. SD has had no blocks since 2011 (almost four years) and many people are aware how easy it is to get blocked for 1RR on ARBPIA. The log does not show he has even been sanctioned, though he was notified. I would be inclined to close this with no action. Not to say that Supreme Deliciousness is editing wonderfully, but there is no one example here that is especially convincing. EdJohnston (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I read this a few days ago but evidently forgot to comment (busy week!). I'm of the same opinion as Ed. There might be an issue here, but it's not a major one. SD would be well-advised to talk more and revert less (or just talk more), but there's nothing that seems to warrant sanctions in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I am actually concerned with this edit (and by the fact that SD still defends it), and whereas I do not think SD should be blocked or banned, a warning would be in place here.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    For all practical purposes, Temple Mount is in Israel, and removing the category means deteriorating encyclopedic quality. These issues should be addressed not by guerilla war in the articles, but by creating elsewhere some formulation which would explain in detail the current situation, like it was done with Crimea for example.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    I do not promote a minority POV, I, from what I remember, never edited articles about Israel/Palestine, and I am not planning to start editing them, since I am not interested spending all my life dealing with highly disruptive partisan editors. I just find the edit problematic for the reasons outlined by Cptnono above. If there is consensus (which I still see no evidence for, but I am prepared to assume GF), that only one hill category is allowed in the articles of this type, then the revert should explicitly point to the consensus and not state that East Jerusalem is not in Israel (which no person who has been there would ever believe). This is why I believe the user should be warned. If this is a common practice among editors on the topic, they should be warned as well and instructed to point out to consensus instead of just reverting edits of new users. If there is consensus among uninvolved administrators that the edits were perfect, fine with me, I do not mind to be overruled.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    I am not really happy how discussion develops here, with two users (including SD) accusing me in claiming East Jerusalem is in Israel (despite the fact that everybody can check I said for all practical purposes), and with the suggestion that new users are not welcome to edit Middle East articles (or, to be precise, they should read all discussions first and figure out what consensus is).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    Whoever claims there is a long-standing consensus on a topic new editors are likely to edit, should create a page like this one and refer to it every time when undoing their edits. I am seriously disappointed that long-term editors do not understand this.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
    @Ymblanter: That's an excellent suggestion, but it's not really within the scope of AE to impose it, much less to sanction editors for doing in good faith what everyone else does in the topic area. Are there issues with SD's conduct you feel still need addressing or is it safe to close this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    It obviously can be closed, since I seem to be the only one who thinks that the editing standards in the area do not conform to the Five Pillars.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    Let me possibly summarize my position, otherwise we are not going to ever close this request. I think the best would be to close it with a warning to SD to stick to the Five Pillars, and, in particular, in non-trivial situations to leave summary at the talk page or to insert an active link in an edit summary. I do not think this should be logged as any kind of sanction, but it should be at their talk page, since they apparently are confident they are doing everything correctly and not succeprible to any arguments. On the other hand, I do not have any problem to be overruled if everybody else (which seems to be the case) feels it should be closed as no action.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    It is funny to see how my statement attracted a bunch of POV pushers who now accuse me in POV themselves. More to come?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Troll much? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Calypsomusic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Calypsomusic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
Source mis-representation
  1. 24 March 2015 Addition of large quantity of POV content, with no backing source. Sources already in text [93] and [94] don't support the edit.
  2. 21 March 2015 Text added which sounds like it is the BJP's perspective on the policies mentioned in the sentences above; but the source used quotes another author (Partha Ghosh, mentioned in the citation) who was writing well before the policy was put in place.
  3. 6 February 2015 (2nd addition following line 198, beginning "on the other hand...") inserts statement saying that the BJP made genuine efforts to win Muslim support. The cited source suggests that the relevant policy was hypocritical, and ends by concluding BJP efforts were symbolic.
Edit-warring
  1. 1, 2 6 February 2015
Battle-ground attitude
  1. RfC begun on including a book by Elst in the further reading section of the BJP article, following a discussion where Calypsomusic participated. Both discussion and RfC show evidence of a battleground mentality. It did not stop there; the RfC closure was disputed by Calypsomusic on the admin's talk page, on ANI, and on the censorship noticeboard.
  1. Recently (15 March 2014) referred to that RfC as censorship, showing that they continue to misunderstand how consensus works. (Note; this diff added later. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC))
  1. Following said discussions, Calypsomusic removed Further Reading material from three unrelated articles [95] [96] [97], a perfect example of editing to make a point.
  1. During a recent GA nomination of the BJP article, and discussion following the failure of the nomination, repeatedly posted walls of text with no supporting refs that were mainstream, secondary, and reliable; GA nomination, talk page, despite repeatedly being asked to do so, and being pointed to relevant policies.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Calypsomusic's editing consistently shows that they do not understand our sourcing policies. They have repeatedly posted blogs, websites, and fringe sources to support their arguments on talk pages, such as here. This, along with the battleground behavior mentioned above, means that carrying on productive discussions with them is virtually impossible. I am not the only one to notice this; Calypsomusic was flagged as an SPA by Drmies on 11 April 2014 on ANI, where a number of issues were raised with their editing. ANI report dropped thanks to an SPI, which turned up negative (diffs on request) but single-purpose editing has not stopped. The vast majority of their edits have to do with Koenraad Elst or the Bharatiya Janata Party, and their use of unreliable and fringe sources indicated an inability to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V. Considering that this is a sensitive and controversial topic area, I believe they should be topic-banned until they show that they can follow these policies and behavioral guidelines.

I am aware that my own conduct will come under scrutiny here, and I am prepared to receive feedback and/or other consequences. I will just say in my own defense that if I seem to not AGF with this user in the interactions visible here, it is because my history with them, and this sort of behavior, stretches even further beyond the interactions shown here (for instance, to their behavior at Koenraad Elst related articles, diffs on request), and that I have collegial interactions with the vast majority of users.

  • AP, you seem to be characterizing this as a symmetric dispute, which it patently is not; even you admit that I accepted the corrections, something Calypsomusic has never done. I also have more than 12k productive edits, in several other topic areas; Indian political articles don't represent even half of my content-related edits. I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of disputes that I have had with you without Calypsomusic being involved, because that seems to me to be off the topic. If anybody wants a response from me about those disputes, I shall provide it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Callanecc, Calypso's recent disruption is mostly on the BJP page, but virtually all his recent edits have also been to the BJP talk pages. He has previously been rather disruptive on the Koenraad Elst page and its talk page; like I mentioned above, this caused Drmies to flag his behavior on ANI. As a matter of fact I walked away from many of those disputes following the walls of text that Calypso posted. Darkness Shines interacted with him a lot more, but he was then tbanned under circumstances you are aware of. In terms of disruption, here is further evidence of pointy editing, which I missed earlier, [98] to the Republican Party article. As to the BLP vio; AP's revert was accurate. I was at that point unaware that criminal accusations in reliable sources that had been dismissed in court were inadmissible per BLP. I am now so aware, and have not to my knowledge made that mistake again. More generally, I believe I have been better at discussing rather than reverting in more recent months. Since we are now looking at interactions between AmritasyaPutra and myself, I would note that AP has had multiple blocks for edit-warring in the past few months, and was also a party to the RfC, following which he disputed the closure on the admins talk page, as well as ANI. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Since AP persists in discussing my interactions with him; I did not "Out" AP. I referred to him by his previous username, which he had used in the same topic area, and which still redirected to his userpage. In retrospect, that was nonetheless a mistake, and not something I will repeat. It was a product of annoyance that I should have handled better; but hardly private information. As to canvassing, the diff that AP himself supplied is fairly clear; he posted to the talk page of a single uninvolved user, and dared me to go to ANI when I pointed it out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Zero, such disagreement becomes disruptive is when the user was well aware of the GAN, and indeed raised some objections to it; [99]. Rather than seeing those through, he then waited several months for the review, and then proceeded to derail it with walls of text with poor sourcing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • There is not much that I have to say to the wall of text that Calypso has produced, but I do want to respond to their explanation of the use of Ghosh as a reference. Their statement again obfuscates the issue. The sentence before the one inserted by Calypso refers to the educational policy of the National Democratic Alliance (India). This came to power in . Partha Ghosh wrote in June 1998, and his article is equally critical of the BJP and the Congress. The "textbook changes" he refers to are state-level changes - very different from the later modifications of the NCERT, and Ghosh is critical of this; the quote Calypso uses to defend BJP policy, begins thus "While the BJP is indeed responsible for advancing a Hindu chauvinistic policy to the detriment of the emotional integration of India, etc." Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

diff

Discussion concerning Calypsomusic

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Calypsomusic

I don't have time for a full reply today, but will provide one in the next days. Some preliminary notes on this comment: "the misrepresentation of sources and the second edit third one under the battleground header (regarding POINT) seem to me to be the most concerning".

The first alleged "misrepresentation" was actually me reverting an IP Edit. In one of the reverts, I explained to the IP that deletions of content should be explained: "rv unexplained major changes and deletions, please provide a rationale for large deletions". I remember last year I edited the article, but only added sourced content. What the IP reverted includes additional material that was not added by me. I reverted simply because the IP did not explain the deletions.

The second case is a content and neutrality dispute. Shourie and Ghosh are very relevant to the section, which is BJP and education policy/textbooks controversies. Ghosh's article that I cited is discussing "changes that the BJP had brought in the textbooks". Both are cited in this context in Ramesh Rao's book that I used and other sources. I also didn't have the time to reply to Vanamonde's revert on the talkpage before he opened this here, so really this is something that should be discussed on the talkpage first. Vanamonde seems to imply here that my source was published in 1998, but his sources were published later. However, the section in the article does not mention any years, if it did, it would have been easier for me to put the additional material in a chronological context.

To the third case, I explained on the talkpage: "I didn't read the full article, but used a quote from the article I saw in a book. The point that needs to be illustrated is that the BJP also made pro-Muslim actions and initiatives, which must also be mentioned. One of them is that it increased the subsidy given to the pilgrims. Rather than deleting the fact, we can add that it previously opposed the subsidy." And later: "The following instance show both sides of the relation, and should be included". After Vanamonde explained it on the talkpage, I did not add it again. On the talkpage I commented on the possibility to use the source as an example where the BJP made both Muslim-critical and pro-Muslim actions.

The third edit under the battleground header (regarding POINT): the edit does not fall under point. It was not an edit "they do not actually agree": the edits were fully justified because KA has zero training in the topic areas and therefore I believe that they should not not be included, especially since these are topic areas where an extremely broad range of much more relevant authors exist. The edits were not in any way directly related to the edits of Darkness Shines, so it was not a POINT in regards to Darkness Shines actions, but the strongly disruptive influence of Darkness Shines on the wikipedia environment during that time should also be taken into account. Usually I'm too hesitant to censor other books on wikipedia, even if justifiable, but the experience with Darkness Shines Vanamonde may have helped me to overcome this weakness.

Will provide my full statement in the next days. --Calypsomusic (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by AmritasyaPutra

  • I believe these two editors clashed here before: Talk:Koenraad_Elst. Regarding battleground mentality on Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party, both have similar tendency. In both these discussion Vanamonde93 was wrong(source-misrepresentation) and had to accept the suggested correction but not without personal attacks: here, and here. AdhunikaSarvajna and I agreed on some points with Vanamonde93 and on some points with calypsomusic but I have not seen Vanamonde93 coming to any solution with Calypsomusic ever. Other pages where I had to revert Vanamonde93 for BLP violation: diff and for aggressive POV deletion: diff. In another content dispute his battleground mentality is clear as he ignores Dharmadhyaksha, Sarvajna and me and inserts his POV six times ignoring the discussion, finally Joshua Jonathan had removed it. Vanamonde93 has clearly shown edit warring: diff of self-revert ignoring the provided rs and edits of multiple editors. All this falls in same topic area. This looks like a mutual aggression and both should stay focused on content dispute and reduce aggression. Calypsomusic should reduce his posts' length too.
The diff which Vanamonde93 presents under 'Edit-warring' should boomerang given this edit summary when he repeatedly reverted the addition of NPOV tag by Calypsomusic: the tag is added if the attempts to discuss it fails. @Callanecc: regarding 'point', no editor restored on two of the articles, it was restored on one and Calypsomusic did not remove it. All three articles are watched by many editors, so these may not be pointy edits.
  • Since Vanamonde93 brings this up: He has reported 4-5 times to AN regarding me; alleged incompetent and canvassing. He has called me dense attempted outing, which he stopped only after two other editors intervened, (I was inexperienced and did not know how to respond to such behavior.) I can say he has a habit of being nasty towards less experienced users. His battleground mentality is seen in this discussion. He has said here I "disputed the closure on the admins talk page, as well as ANI", please validate it against the ANI case where I made only one "thank you" edit.
If old username is SuperMan and new name Callanecc would you say {{u|Callanecc|Super}}? The earlier username was retired two months before even creation of the page where Vanamonde93 morphs it. He repeated the same behavior three times despite explicit warning until two other editors intervened. The ANI concluded with no canvassing and he still says here it was canvassing. This is battleground mentality.
  • I disagree with Kautilya3's sweeping judgement regarding various authors including Arun Shourie and Koenraad Elst, I have expressed it in context earlier among few other editors here and here. I think this is not the place for it and the accusation is misplaced. You are using misleading edit summary and using Koenraad Elst selectively.

Statement by Kautilya3

From my point of view, the most concerning aspect of Calypsomusic's behaviour is that they blocked a GA nomination (of Bharatiya Janata Party) by edit-warring in the midst of a GA review (diff, diff, protected). They claimed that the article was not written from NPOV but failed to substantiate this: Talk:Bharatiya Janata Party#Neutrality of this article isdisputed. They do not appear to understand the meaning of scholarly consensus and ignore the guidelines about reliable third party sources. Despite our repeated explanations, they continue to cite sources closely allied with the Bharatiya Janata Party or fringe sources that are not accepted by the consensus of Wikipedia editors (diff and my analysis). This is what prompted my notification to them of the ARBIPA sanctions (diff), but there has been no noticeable effect of it on their talk page discussions (diff, diff). Their knowledge seems limited to these questionable sources, and they are in no frame of mind to accept the widely accepted scholars such as Ramachandra Guha. Their continued participation on this page and other Hindu nationalist topics is disruptive. I support a topic ban. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The sources that Calypsomusic wants to use in writing the article on Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) are:

  • Koenraad Elst, a Hindu revivalist writer publishing in Voice of India, which is well to the right of BJP and allied organisations according to scholars (JSTOR 40279263).
  • Ramesh Nagaraj Rao, a professor of Communication Studies and a leader of the Hindu American Foundation (sympathetic to Hindu nationalism), whose professed objective is to "counter the criticism" of the BJP and its allies. The cited book has no academic citations on Google Scholar.
  • L. K. Advani, a senior leader and past President of the BJP.
  • Arun Shourie, another senior leader and past Central Minister in the BJP government.
  • Gurdas Ahuja, who seems to be an insider of the BJP (possibly a member). See my comment.

If the views of these sources, who are all very close to the subject at hand, are not represented in the article, he deems that the article is not neutral. If any criticism of BJP is not balanced by including positive comments on BJP, he deems that it is not neutral. This has been going on since March 2014 (diff). Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Calypsomusic and AmritasyaPutra would like to make it appear as if this is a "content dispute" or dispute about "neutrality", but it is in reality an unwillingness to read and follow WP:RS and WP:NPOV. They ignore the prescription that the sources must be reliable, third-party, (published) sources. They ignore the fact that NPOV means representing such sources fairly and proportionately. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ugog Nizdast

I have been involved with this mainly through the 2015 BJP-related conduct dispute and its previous GA nomination. After the RFC and discussion died down, it took six months to get a willing GA reviewer. Finally, when the review was almost complete, Calypsomusic effectively disrupted it by coming out of dormancy and posting walls of text (diff) questioning its neutrality. The review had to close solely because Calypsomusic made the article unstable. Efforts to bring a fruitful discussion were in vain, three of us, plus the GA reviewer (diff, diff, diff), all agreed that there were no concerns regarding the article unless sources could be presented otherwise. Calypsomusic's recent rfc and POV tag (diff, diff). Vanamonde has brought the BJP article a long way since 2013 (major contributor) and till now was to forced to mollify (diff, diff, diff, diff) Calypsomusic to be able to get it GA passed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC) (apologies, diff links added later, first time giving statement here. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC))

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Calypsomusic

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'll wait for a statement by Calypsomusic but the misrepresentation of sources and the second edit third one under the battleground header (regarding POINT) seem to me to be the most concerning. One related question: is the disruption limited to Bharatiya Janata Party or is it broader? The evidence from AmritasyaPutra regarding Vanamonde93 is concerning, particularly the BLP vio, but I'm not convinced that action is required at this stage. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that all of Ugog Nizdast's diffs concern discussion on a talk page. I see Calypsomusic expressing an opinion there and others disagreeing. Such discussions, provided they are carried out in good faith, do not violate any policy or sanction. Annoying or not, it is perfectly allowed for an editor to disagree with the imminent result of a GA review. I didn't yet look at the diffs given by the reporter. Zerotalk 23:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Dicklyon

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Dicklyon

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#Discretionary sanctions :

I would draw specific attention to remedy 1.2: "All parties are reminded to avoid personalizing disputes concerning the Manual of Style, the article titles policy ('WP:TITLE'), and similar policy and guideline pages, and to work collegially towards a workable consensus. In particular, a rapid cycle of editing these pages to reflect one's viewpoint, then discussing the changes is disruptive and should be avoided. Instead, parties are encouraged to establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes".

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. [100] Referring to those that oppose his changes as "inane", and their opinions as "lies".
  2. Blackfriars Massacre – What happened at this article is a telling example of Dicklyon-style tactics. In this case, he unilaterally moved the page on 6 December 2014. This move was part of a huge series of concurrent moves, which I subsequently reverted per WP:BRD. The decapitalisation was subsequently discussed at a mass RM, where it was voted down. That didn't stop Dicklyon from coming back months later and trying to do the same thing again. I asked him to file an RM, and reverted his changes. He reverted me again, calling me "silly", and this time modified the redirect so that I could not change it back. I was forced to make a request at RM/TR, which ended the issue.
  3. Engages in edit-warring and move-warring in the name of what he calls "style fixes" or "maintenance". He was blocked for this, but his behaviour has not changed (see "Mud Run Disaster" moves below).
  4. [101] Referring to me as a "donkey" for asking for a reversion of his mass unilateral changes per WP:BRD at WP:RM/TR. Badgering and threatening tone.
  5. Please read the talk page section labelled "Event name RMs" at this revision of his talk page, where editors attempted to counsel Dicklyon against mass changes. His response was flippant, disregarded consensus, and showed his desired to bulldoze his favoured changes through.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Reminded on 14 May 2013. According to the sanctions log at WP:ARBATC#Enforcement log, this reminder qualifies as a notification until 3 May 2015. This seems somewhat confusing, as the modern procedure specifies one alert per 12 months. As such, I've added a modern-style DS notice today. I think that the earlier reminder should qualify as making Dicklyon alert, though, as the log say that it does not expire until May this year.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

I've been tempted to file this request for a while. Dicklyon has been on a constant "style crusade" across the encylopaedia since late last year. The two issues that have been most controversial are the removal of the comma from names using the "Jr." or "Sr." suffixes, and the unilateral mass decapitalisation of various articles. His conduct in this area has been nothing but unacceptable. He has had no regard for consensus, and has continually casted WP:ASPERSIONS against editors opposed to his mass changes. His point-of-view on these editors, who he terms "zealots", can be found in this comment, which started a discussion about how to canvas editors that support his viewpoint. His effort is ongoing. Just yesterday, he made a mass of unilateral moves, modifying the redirects so that regular editors could not revert him. When I subsequently asked for a reversion of these edits at WP:RM/TR, Dicklyon began to move war to retain his favoured version, labelling the capitalisation as "junk", and necessitating a second RM/TR request. What do I want from this AE request? I simply want Dicklyon to stop this mass unilateral moves, and to stop gaming the system. There are many, many more that have gone unnoticed. These moves have caused rows at numerous pages. The RM procedure should suffice, and he should know that these changes are controversial. He moves hundreds of little-watched pages a week, with little scrutiny of his edits.

@Callanecc: An accusation of "stalking" is absurd. Where have you derived this utter nonsense from? An outrageous claim by a supposedly neutral party, with not a shred of evidence to back it. I demand that you strike it at once. I have not followed anyone anywhere. There is no problem between me and Dicklyon. I have no issue with him personally, and I presume he does not have any personal issue with me. The only issue is the hundreds of mass page moves being made without consensus, which are done in ways to game the system. The remedy 1.2 is clear on this matter. You seem to have mistaken all the evidence presented here, and have turned this into a thread about a non-existent personal dispute. I will not countenance this grave error on your part. This is not about a personal dispute, and this is not about civility. It is about ramming through hundreds of page moves, preventing reversion, preventing discussion, ignoring consensus, and labelling those who oppose his interpretation of the MoS as "zealots, &c." Strike your absurd and irrelevant comments. Please provide a solution to the problem raised, not to non-existent problems that seem to have materialised in your words and in no-one else's here. RGloucester 06:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

  • As far as Dicklyon's statement is concerned, it is best to ignore it. It is filled with the same falsities that he has used to make his "maintenance fixes" for months. His changes are not uncontroversial or "routine" for anyone but himself. None of his moves are. When actually subjected to consensus, they are frequently rejected. He forgets that the burden is on him to present evidence for a change from longstanding title, and not the other way around. The moves of the previous day that were reverted were all controversial, and had no evidence provided for them. His statement is filled with blatant lies. He claims that I've "stalked him" into the Jr/Sr issue, but this is so obviously false that it is clear he's just trying to make more of a mess. I have had all the MoS pages on my watchlist for longer than I've known of his existence. In fact, when other users questioned his changes at the MoS page with regard to Jr/Sr, I explicitly supported his position without engaging with him directly. He says that I "talked them into" moving Cuban Missile Crisis, when I only made a grand total of ONE comments during that move request. This type of misrepresentation is par for the course for Dicklyon. He will often say that things are "not capitalised in sources", but ignores sources when they are provided. He forces changes through, making it impossible to oppose him. Watts riots is a good example. He proposed that the page be moved three times in three months, to the point where he was just shopping for the result he wanted. Yes, he finally got Watts riots in his last move request. That's not because it should've been moved, but because all the previous participants had not been informed, and because users like me simply did not have the energy refute his false logic again. This is unacceptable. Regardless, he is right sometimes. I've supported plenty of his move requests, which one will see if one looks. That doesn't mean he gets carte blanche. This nonsense needs to stop. It is not a personal dispute, the "stalking" allegations are baseless rubbish that don't deserve to see the light of day. Ignore the lies, look at the reality. RGloucester 07:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
  • In response to Tony1's remarks about "language", I will say that that is irrelevant. There is no difference between civil disruption and rude disruption. Call me an idiot all one likes. I'm content to be an idiot. My request has nothing to do with such nonsense. My request has to do with disruptive page moves and gaming the system. Those concerns need to be addressed. The "civility" aspect is a canard. RGloucester 03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Dicklyon

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Dicklyon

Probably you should go ahead and block me, for a long time, so I can stop trying to work around RGloucester this idiot. Dicklyon (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, we can talk about this. I'm getting the message that some people are not keen on my persistent effort to move things toward compliance with the MOS. But let's look at the source, and what's behind his allegations, and why he has been stalking me and fighting everything I do since December.

In early December, he reverted about 34 of my recent case fixes to article titles, mostly of riots and massacres; so I started the multiple RM at Talk:Watts_riots#Requested_moves. If you look at the articles listed there, you'll see that his errorful re-capitalization has since been corrected, by consensus in RM discussions, for the vast majority of them (looks like 24 of the 30, anyway); besides the Lager Beer Riot which I declined to pursue, the few still capitalized were mostly left that way because we were unable to arrive at a consensus in a move discussion (see closer's statement at Talk:Pullman_Strike#Requested_move_20_December_2014); all the ones that went to lowercase were due to a consensus that the MOS applies and that these terms are not usually capitalized in sources.

Now, I realize he may be pissed that he lost so many, but I'm pissed that he dragged us through so many months of discussion by so many editors where the MOS obviously applied and the move to lowercase was obviously appropriate. In the process, he said at one point that he would no longer bother with capitalization. Yet he's now stalking me again. He undid the routine moves of "XXX Disaster" articles where in each case the term has little or no support in sources for interpretation as a proper name.

And somehow he decided to stalk me to other issues, like the comma before "Jr." that I believe I pursued pretty carefully and without pissing anyone off until he started reverting me. See WP:JR and discussion such at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Comma_after_.22Jr..22.2C_.22Sr..22.2C_etc..3F and subsequent. Note that I was very open there about what I doing: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Testing_new_consensus, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#Followup. More recently, a few editors have objected; in most cases I have just joined the conversations. If I acted badly with an editor besides RG who was stalking me, well, it might be that I was grumpy; but I don't recall who this would have been; point it out and I'll apologize.

As Randy Kryn notes, I taught him a few things about how WP RM processes work. He objected to some routine moves to lowercase of titles with "Civil Rights Movement" in them, and eventually prevailed in getting a consensus on his side to capitalize them even though they are not usually capitalized in sources. Did I bully or complain when he achieved that odd local consensus among history and civil rights buffs? No, I left that alone. Did I whine when he talked them into undoing the previous consensus at Cuban missile crisis and recapitalized it? Maybe a little.

So, other than being dedicated to moving toward compliance with the MOS, and some obnoxious reactions to obnoxious behavior, what awful things am I being accused of? And could someone ask RG to stop stalking me please? Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, whatever you think the right process is, note that at least 3 other editors tried to dissuade the admins from implementing RG's requested reversion of my case fixes to the "XXX Disaster" articles, and the admins held off until after that discussion was removed to talk here, and RG himself closed the discussion on the talk page. His interference in what would have been an uncontroversial set of moves, like the hundreds of others that he notes nobody has ever paid any attention to, is something noted by lots of editors besides me. If he had any basis for challenging one or more of these, we could discuss; we're doing that on a few already (see Talk:Buffalo Creek Flood#Requested move 25 March 2015, Talk:Johnstown Flood#Requested move 25 March 2015), but from past experience I know that he and the other MOS haters will object is a make a multi-RM for what should have been an uncontroversial set of moves. If I'm wrong, somebody show me that some of these are consistently capitalized in sources, as MOS:CAPS says is the criterion. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

I made the mistake of closing an RFC about the Manual of Style, in particular about comma before Jr. That didn't resolve things, and my request for closure review at WP:AN is still open, but part of the problem is that some editors are tendentious and disruptive about MOS issues. Shortly afterward a request was filed at the dispute resolution noticeboard about astronomical capitalization, in which the OP requested that DRN deal with a "disruptive RFC". That is clear evidence of disruptive editing, because either the RFC was disruptive or the DRN request was disruptive or both. In any case, I think that it is time for Arbitration Enforcement to take a strict approach to disruptive and tendentious editing about MOS issues. The subject of this request is not the only editor who has been disruptive recently about MOS issues, but the subject has made a personal attack right here in the use of the word "idiot". Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that a major issue is said to be controversial removals by Dicklyon of the comma before Jr. or Sr. On that particular point, the statement that his removal of the comma is controversial is just incorrect. The MOS states that the omission of the comma is preferred, in part because the rules about punctuation after the suffix are complicated. I have not reviewed the details of Dicklyon's requested moves to remove commas, or his actual moves to review commas, but there is nothing controversial about the removal of the comma. (There may be controversy about his tactics if he is making or requesting large numbers of moves.) Criticisms of his action in removing commas may themselves be disruptive. In any case, I submit again that it is time for Arbitration Enforcement to take a strict approach to disruptive and tendentious editing about the MOS. Dicklyon has insulted another filer, and Dicklyon's opponents are going against consensus (the MOS). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by BusterD

For the most part, I have not been part of the MOS disputes about capitalization, but I have participated in a small number of RM and talkpage discussions surrounding such on-page disputes. I have frequently noted a flippant dismissive attitude on the part of Dicklyon. It is possible I have missed it, but since I began watching these sorts of disputes, I don't remember ever seeing Dicklyon admit error or apologize for a heated disagreement. The user's apparent urgency and self-righteousness often comes across to me as arrogant and battlefield-like.

1) Here's a notice I left on talk about warnings sent Dicklyon and Red Harvest after editwarring in live pagespace. I had previously attempted to guide discussion to avoid the revert warring.
2) Because Dicklyon often blanks his usertalk page, it is difficult to show an entire discussion without other content, but here is one such about User:Blueboar's rather civil objection to the speed of Dicklyon's changes (the section titled Event name RMs). My comments here and here make several points about Dicklyon's dismissive language, including diffs.
3) The user has been blocked twice in the last two months for disruptive editing involving capitalization issues. Note the 2011 block which was given for violating 3RR on MOS (capital letters). This frequent edit warring over capitalization is ongoing and not a new behavior for this user.
4) This comment made by Dicklyon as a response in this very procedure demonstrates the user's failure to act in a civil manner when confronted with disagreement. This sort of language is ongoing and not new behavior for this user. BusterD (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Red Harvest

I became aware of Dicklyon's flippant and disruptive approach to this when he began moving some pages I was watching. He did this without discussion and reverted the moves back without discussion which has been his M.O. Various editors disagree about his criteria and approach to MOSCAPS but he blows off the concerns. When consensus is against a move he either makes it anyway, or keeps coming back to challenge it again until he can bulldoze through opposition. I'm less concerned about the actual moves (although I disagree with several and don't buy into his circular logic). I am more concerned about the abuse of process that is the norm for his edits. Red Harvest (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I do realize that this is the time for the MOS haters to air all my past sins and flippant attitudes, but do you have any actual examples of where "When consensus is against a move he either makes it anyway, or keeps coming back to challenge it again until he can bulldoze through opposition"? I think you're misremembering cases where more discussion was needed to reach consensus. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not misremembering anything and find your personal credibility to be dubious based on a lie about me on your talk page--which when challenged you referred to as "a mischaracterization of your position, perhaps" then continued down the same line. You repeatedly ignore the consensus when it goes against your desired move. Then you try again and again waiting for opposition to weary. As others have noted, it is your crusade. Folks can go back and look through the moves and discussions as they wish.
I don't hate the MOS, but I do find parts of it are not well fleshed out/defined. When that was brought to your attention, you blew it off repeatedly. Others expressed similar concerns including User: North Shoreman. When I see a zealot unwilling to acknowledge that the guiding document could address some things better and then behave as if his view is the only valid one/worth consideration, then I doubt his judgment and will not support his crusade. As I recall your primary objection was that other editors were slowing you down. So while I don't oppose the MOS, as a result of your personal tactics I am hesitant to accept your interpretation of it. Red Harvest (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by George Ho

I am unsure whether this is about Dicklyon or the misuse of MOS. I myself removed commas from Roy Simmons, Jr. and Roy Simmons, Sr. Then I re-added commas into them because majority opposed removal of commas, especially at Talk:Barack Obama, Sr.#Requested move 4 March 2015. When I reverted Dicklyon’s attempts to remove commas preceding the predecessor/successor abbreviation, he questioned my actions non-stop. When I re-added a comma, Dicklyon reverted my re-adding it twice. Unlike Dicklyon, I mostly discuss capitalizations and commas, especially when I have requested them, like Talk:Better than Today, Talk:Barack Obama, Sr., and Talk:None but the Brave. As agreed, he did attempt to remove a comma from "Martin Luther King, Sr." by requesting it as “uncontroversial”, while a move discussion has been ongoing. I should ask Philg88 about this action. --George Ho (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Philg88

Comment by uninvolved admin The "action" that George Ho refers to was the processing of a move request filed at uncontroversial technical requests (WP:RMT). At the time of the move, I was unaware that there was a discussion ongoing and the request appeared prima facie to be uncontentious.  Philg88 talk 06:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tony1

I feel slightly awkward in posting here, since I have a COI: I mostly agree with Dicklyon's opinions on capitalisation and support his moves. I find his logic and evidence compelling, as you'd expect from the scientist who invented the optical mouse; whereas I don't see RGloucester and like-minded editors on this matter presenting well-structured evidence or explaining their logic in a convincing way.

On several occasions I've sought Dicklyon's opinion about capitalisation in technical areas, and have noted his caution—he doesn't automatically agree with proposals to downcase.

But I see that a certain emotional content has crept in, which is understandable but regrettable. I wish Dick would studiously refrain from anything that could be taken as personal; and I note that RGloucester is conducting something of a campaign against him (e.g. this). Some conflict-in-debate appears inevitable on this stylistic matter, and is probably healthy; but surely all parties can start afresh in terms of surface politness: both make valuable contributions to en.WP. Tony (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have suggested to Dicklyon that he make changes in the language he uses in this type of dispute. I think there's a reasonable likelihood that he will do so. Tony (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Randy Kryn

An ornery cuss to be sure, Dicklyon takes a side, holds it like a tiger, and won't let go until he's pinned down and dragged out. Then he bellows and calls names. But he stands up for what he believes in, and by contesting him quite a few times in the last few months I've learned more about the inner workings of Wikipedia than I have since becoming a member in 2007. Some of what I've learned concerns the scant number of people who make site-wide changes with little input, with Dicklyon leading the charge on many occasions. When he's good he's very very good. When he's bad he shows his blind spots and a rigidness to personal dogma (as we all do, and hopefully learn from each other), but even then he's either educational and/or entertaining. He certainly gets the job done, tirelessly working to make Wikipedia the gem that it is. I don't know what remedy is being sought here, but ask that Dicklyon not be banned for any length of time (well, maybe an hour, that'll teach him!). His valued contributions to Wikipedia greatly benefit the site, and who knows, if he was kinder and gentler he may not be as good (and banned he's no good at all). Takes all kinds, it really does, and if Dicklyon's style changed then Wikipedia would be the less for it. Randy Kryn 8:59 27 March, 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Blueboar

In his comments (above) BusterD points us to a discussion I had with Dick on his talk page a while back... I think it is worth repeating something I said in that discussion. I actually warned Dick that something like this might happen. The problem with Dick's behavior isn't so much the substance of his moves (or his move requests), it's the appearance of them. By moving (or proposing) multiple articles at one time, he gives the appearance of being on an unthinking "anti-capitalization crusade". And crusading is almost always seen as disruptive... even when the crusader may be correct and the crusade may benefit the project. The disruption isn't so much what is done, as how it is done. It's a behavior issue, not a content issue. The fact is, Dick is often (but not always) correct in his determination of what the most appropriate title should be... and it does not matter. His correctness is actually besides the point. It's more the way he goes blundering about like a bull in a china shop, moving lots and lots of articles all at once (and stubbornly defending his moves) that is disruptive, and less the individual moves themselves.

I would suggest that an appropriate remedy would be to 1) ban him from moving articles outside of the RM process, and 2) limit him within the RM process - to raising one article at a time for discussion. This way Wikipedia would continue benefit from his expertise on style issues (all be it at a slower pace)... while at the same time reducing the crusading behavior that pisses so many people off. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Result concerning Dicklyon

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Dicklyon does seems to resort to personal attacks and incivility occasionally however I'm not seeing enough which to warrant more than a warning to avoid personalising disputes. Regarding the concerns raised over RGloucester's beahviour (stalking) I can see where those concerns are coming from - RG does appear at a number of places Dick has taken an action, even if that is coincidence the appearance is of RG following Dick around. In terms of sanctions which could be placed we're somewhat limited with what we can do with these discretionary sanctions (which IMO only apply to discussions about MOS and WP:TITLE rather than it's application on articles so I don't think we'd be able to impose the restrictions Blueboar has suggested. I'm loathe to suggest an broad mutual IBAN but I think an IBAN which only prevents RG and Dick from interacting regarding the MOS or WP:TITLE (including discussions about it or it's provisions which the other is already involved in) for six months might calm this issue down as it seems the angst is primarily between those two. The benefit of this area only is that they don't need to be constantly on guard for if the other has commented, and hopefully having to check if the other is involved in this area will stop them from taking actions straight away. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I agree with RG that some of what Dicklyon presents does not seem to be the case from a neutral point of view, but I can see where they are coming from regarding some (eg regarding RG). However given that other editors commenting agree that Dicklyon's behaviour is not ideal (and the evidence presented supports that) then the wider issue is more evident. Having said that, given my opinion of the limited scope of the discretionary sanctions (that they can't be used to enforce the MOS) I don't think there is a great deal we can do here. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)