Page semi-protected


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

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:


Requests for arbitration

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talkcontribs) 05:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad

I think some editors would benefit from reading and thinking about the comment I made here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

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)
  • I agree with the above. The reading of the scope of sanctions is in line with the scope of the case and their wording. An expansion of them to cover all article space would be very broad indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:47, 31 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[1]
  • Reverting (an IP) regarding the terminology of occupied land[2]
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed status[3]
  • Reverting (an IP) to highlight the disputed status [4]
  • Highlighting the occupation[5]
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed land[6]
  • Reverting (a IP) about Israel[7]
  • Highlighting the occupation. It doesn't neccasarily smack of POV pushing but it is part of the sample size[8]
  • Reverting to limit the visibility of Hebrew on a food article (a surprisingly common form of POV pushing in the topic area)[9]

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.[10][11][12][13]
  • 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.[14][15][16][17][18]
  • 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.[19][20][21][22][23][24][25]
  • 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.[26][27][28]

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.[29]
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"[30] 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"[31] 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:

  • [33], The West bank is occupied so there is nothing wrong with calling it that.
  • [34], 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?
  • [35], same as above, East Jerusalem is by the entire international community rejected as Israel, so my edit is 100% accurate.
  • [36], 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.
  • [37], 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.
  • [38]. 100% accurate edit. Temple mount is not in Israel.
  • [39]. 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.[40]. As his revert was illegitimate, I undid his revert. I also discussed at the talkpage:[41].
  • [42]. The map is now changed but it used to show the Golan as striped brown. So thats why I did that edit.
  • [43]. 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: [44]

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.: [45], 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.[46], [47], [48].

I would also like to point out that Cptnono comes here with unclean hands, take a look at this:[49] 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:[50] Ymblanter, a warning for what? The Temple Mount is not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Re:[51], 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:[52], 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:[53], 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:[54], 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)

Magog the Ogre, for that kind of restriction there would have to be evidence showing any problematic edit I have done where I wrongfully remove "Israeli" or wrongfully ad "occupied", no such evidence has been provided here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:11, 1 April 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:[55]. 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:[56]--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: [57], (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)

I think it is wrong to punish those who remove untrue and biased statements. Contrary to what some think, saying for example "Israeli-controlled" is not better than "Israeli-occupied" because it is viewed as occupied territories (including by the Israeli Supreme Court and some former Israeli prime ministers) by basically the whole world. The first term is not more neutral, it is the opposite as it prefers the Israeli view.

As I said before, there are some who constantly change to that type of wording, in addition to for example removing mention of Palestine or Palestinians, and reverting them is the correct thing to do. --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy's latest response. I can't understand how such type of edits are seen by some admins as not only unwelcome, but as a problem. Just look at these two edits I saw some hours ago and reverted: and,_California&diff=654398390&oldid=654299022. You can make a list full of such reverts made by me and others but that does not make them unacceptable. It rather shows what we have to deal with so often. -IRISZOOM (talk) 03:21, 1 April 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)

SD's editing at Commons and here often included removing Israel categories from places that nobody except Israel accepts to be in Israel. If SD is prevented from removing such categories in the future, it will be beholden on other editors to remove them as required by NPOV. Unfortunately neutrality is being mistaken for pov here. An equivalent action from a Palestinian pov would be to add a State of Palestine category to Haifa; if it happens it is reverted immediately. I find it disappointing that no admin either here or on Commons has noted the serious neutrality problem with categories that support a minority nationalism. Some only seem interested in sanctioning those who remove them. Zerotalk 03:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Just for the record, if someone on Commons starts adding "Category:State of Palestine" to photos of things in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Ramla, what will you do? Zerotalk 03:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC) @Magog the Ogre: Since I did not appeal to tu quoque at all, your reply is unhelpful as well as rude, but I'll withdraw from commenting on matters at Commons, which are anyway irrelevant here. My real point was to invite you to comment on the difference between inserting non-neutral text and removing it. I think that sometimes SD goes overboard in inserting "occupied" in contexts where the political reality is not the topic of discussion, but edits that remove or neutralize narrow nationalist viewpoints made in Wikipedia's voice are called "good editing". If he was such a pov-pusher as you say, he would be inserting corresponding Arab/Palestinian viewpoints like in my hypothetical examples, but I don't see him doing things like that. Zerotalk 08:29, 1 April 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)

This really seems way off. The edits that restored the word occupied were spot on. The edits that removed a place as being in Israel were spot on. This seems to me an instance in which a user throws up a bunch of edits, collected over months, that all individually stand up on their merits in the hope of showing some nefarious pattern. The edits are all correct, and yall cant seriously be considering a sanctions for making what are, emphatically, good edits. nableezy - 02:57, 1 April 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)

@Magog the Ogre: I genuinely can't imagine why any editor should be prevented from editing for content in the way you propose. Surely an AE restriction needs to be limited to process, not content -- why would AE in effect mandate what the content of an article should be? And if the point is that you want SD not to implement certain kinds of content while others are allowed to do so, what is the basis for that? If someone systematically removes the word "occupied" from articles describing the presence of Israeli institutions in the West Bank, I would find it necessary to revert those edits; why would another editor be prevented from doing so? I'm quite sure that your proposal does not come from a point of view holding that the West Bank is not occupied -- in other words, you aren't trying here to determine what the relevant articles should say. So I don't understand it. In any event, I think what you propose would break new ground here, and I don't think we want to do it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:58, 1 April 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[58] Editor: had disrupted the article by removing factual reference to occupation. SD reverted
  • Reverting (an IP) regarding the terminology of occupied land[59] Editor: had disrupted the article by removing internationally recognised reference to the West Bank. SD reverted
  • Reverting to highlight the disputed status[60] 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 [61] Editor: had disrupted the article by asserting that the Golan heights were Israeli
  • Highlighting the occupation[62] 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[63] 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[64] 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[65] 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)[66] 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 Magog the Ogre

First off, apologies to everyone else. I freely admit I have not carefully read everyone's comments, but I am coming to this discussion at the request of a moderator.

Second a history:

  • I noticed a while ago that SD was quite obviously editing with an agenda. His edits, while sometimes helpful, were largely with the intent to push a POV in the Israel / Palestine dispute. I mean that quite literally: more than 50% of his edits were POV-pushing. I invite anyone to take a look for themselves to see the evidence.[67]
  • While such behavior is unacceptable on Wikipedia, it is even worse on a project like Commons where POV-pushing shouldn't ever occur. As such, I warned the editor (perhaps more curtly than was appropriate) - to stop. [68]
  • SD responded with a very megalomaniacal answer, in which he accused me of POV pushing and stated that Israel was an occupier, end of story, so no need to give its POV in the dispute.[69]
  • Because SD did not stop edit warring after this, I blocked him. Full confession time: this was a very poor decision on my part, as I was far too involved. I later apologized for that.[70] (as a half-excuse, I'll say that handling POV disputes is much more difficult on Commons)
  • A few months later, SD came back and reverted me again without discussion or explanation.[71] This led to me leaving another curt message on his talk page,[72] which once again led to the megalomaniacal assertion that his own POV was neutral so any others could not be tolerated.[73]. (FWIW, I told him as much[74])
  • A few months later, SD was again exhibiting behavioral problems. This time I warned the user I would seek a block of him on the administrator noticeboard if he didn't stop.[75]
  • Unsurprisingly, he didn't stop. So I brought the issue up (c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 48#User:Supreme Deliciousness), where four other established users agreed that an indef block was warranted (one of the commenters didn't say so in that discussion, but did later on SD's talk page).
  • Whilst appealing the block, SD agreed to stop reverting without discussion. That is literally the only thing I wanted in the first place when I asked for his block, so I agreed to unblock him. Fortunately, he has not had any problems in the 5 months since that occurred, so a reblock has not been necessary.

Third, my observations:

  • In my experience, users who lack enough self-awareness to realize that other people can have a different POV are bad news bears for editing on Wikipedia.
  • As previously stated, SD has behaved for the last 5 months. I do not know if this is because we finally got his attention, because he knows he can't get away with it anymore on Commons, or because he's been busy elsewhere. Frankly, given the recent diffs provided by Cptnono, it seems it's one of the latter two.
  • IMO, discretionary sanctions were made precisely to stop the type of behavior exhibited by SD. When I saw this type of behavior while patrolling AN3, I absolutely applied sanctions. Honestly, I do not know what this is even controversial (the tu quoque defense about other editors is not worth addressing).

Magog the Ogre (t c) 23:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: if it were me, I would institute the following:
  • SD should have barred from any mainspace editing which adds a term to refer to any land as "occupied," including closely related words (e.g., "subjugated").
  • SD should have barred from any mainspace editing which removes the terms Israel or Israeli from a subject, including closely related terms.
  • 1RR/week restriction per page on any subject dealing with the Israeli/Arab or Syrian/Lebanese/Al-Qaeda/FSA/etc. conflict, excepting obvious vandalism and edits by proven socks.
  • Low tolerance policy for personal attacks.
  • Strong suggestions to quit the battleground mindset and treating everyone who disagrees with him as unworthy of having their opinion present.
SD may ask to have the restrictions lifted after every 6 months by demonstrating he is able to edit in a collegiate manner. Magog the Ogre (t c) 01:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Supreme Deliciousness: This has already been done, multiple times.
@Zero0000: have you stopped beating your wife yet? It takes some serious cajones to read a statement whose very last sentence mentions tu quoque and then in the response to engage in tu quoque. Magog the Ogre (t c) 3:50 pm, Today (UTC+11)

Short comment by uninvolved A Quest for Knowledge

The first diff shows SD reinserting the word "occupied". While the land is clearly occupied, what's the point of including this tidbit into this particular article? After all, the article is about a kidnapping, not the West Bank's political status. Its inclusion seems gratuitous. Further, the cited source is this CNN article,[76] which does not state that the West Bank is occupied. The cited source does include a quote which states, ""The arrest campaign made by the Israeli occupation in the West Bank..." but it would be wrong to transform the content inside a quote into a forthright statement in Wikipedia' voice.
If I find time (and patience), I may look into the other diffs, but the first diff appears to have merit. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:46, 1 April 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)
I'm the admin who asked User:Magog the Ogre to comment here. (SD's block record on Commons was mentioned in the above report, and Magog was one of the blocking admins). @Magog the Ogre:, can you think of some way of wording an appropriate restriction here? You mentioned he agreed 'to stop reverting without discussion' on Commons. I assume the diff in which he makes the offer is this one. See the complete discussion at commons:User talk:Supreme Deliciousness#Last warning. EdJohnston (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


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
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 [77] and [78] 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.
  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 [79] [80] [81], 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, [82] 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; [83]. 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)
  • Couple of brief responses to Calypsomusic's latest post. First, I did NOT use rollback on his edits. I have not, ever, used rollback on a non-vandal edit. I don't even believe I used standard twinkle rollback at any point; but if ever I did, it was always accompanied by an edit summary. His comment on Ghosh is also disingenuous. The chronology is abundantly clear, because the previous sentence refers to a certain government (not party). Sure, Ghosh is important, but not there, and he is not pro-BJP; read the quote I provided in the previous paragraph. Finally, I am enjoying the fact that Calypso's genuine feelings have come out; that a "hindu" POV and a "BJP" POV are one and the same, and that I am excluding these. He talks of a "broader selection" of scholars; but he has not provided a single reliable mainstream source on the talk without mis-representing it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 


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.

I don't own the Ramesh Rao book and could only consult it for a short time. I made the addition in good faith from my limited time with the information in the book chapter, and if Vanamonde has issues with the edit, it should be first discussed on the talkpage, not here. I have made copies of the relevant pages in Rao's book, and have also consulted another source, so was going to argue about the inclusion about the source on the talkpage, but because of this case here, this has been delayed, otherwise I would have done so by now. I also would ask Vanamonde to include years in the section, to make it easier to place the controversy in a chronological context, and I see no reason that the controversies in earlier years, or on state level, should not be mentioned. I see however that Vanamonde is trying to remove neutral or pro-Hindu opinion like that of Ghosh, a very relevant source for BJP textbook controversies.
I have simply tried to include both sides of the argument in the section, so added the missing viewpoint. He should thank me for trying to balance the section, unless he wants to keep it non-neutral. Currently, like all other sections on controversies in the article, it is slanted towards the anti-Hindu/anti-BJP position. Somebody needs to tell Vanamonde that quotes from a broader selection of scholars should be selected in a effort to juxtapose the two dominant points of views. In an article on the BJP, the Hindu pov is also one of the dominant point pov views. But to Vanamonde, whatever I am doing it is not right. When I'm discussing on the talkpage, I'm just posting "walls of text". When I'm editing the article, I practically always get reverted on the BJP page and even other pages. Vanamonde has been asked to read WP:OWN already by another user to no avail. The education policy section is also very illustrative of what is wrong in the BJP article: the section on the education policy only mentions one controversy, without attempting to show any comprehensive description of the BJP policy on education . How on earth can this be neutral? Compare this with this here. Similar serious NPOV issues are in the section on illegal immigrants, and the one-sided accusations against the top leadership of the BJP, and other sections. But even when I'm trying to improve the article by adding information on the completely missing sections in the article, like the environmental policy section, I get reverted. Gurdas is not a BJP member, but even a primary source can be fine for uncontroversial statements. When I'm comparing the article to the Republican party article, I also get snubbed, but comparing the article to similar articles on wikipedia is standard. Really the biggest obstacle that this article gets improved is Vanamonde.

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.

Edit warring

The "edit warring" was one (un, uno, yksi, ein, en, um, jeden, isa) revert on my part (of course accompanied with a talk page comment). Vanamonde claims two reverts, but the first link was not a revert, but me adding the NPOV tag. Only the second edit counts as one revert.

The "edit-warring" on Vanamonde's part was four reverts (or partial reverts) [84][85][86][87][88][89] in a 2 hour period. So AP is right that this should boomerang on Vanamonde. But Vanamonde is the one who is reverting all my edits, not me. He does so often with rollback. He should also be told that he should only use rollback for obvious cases of vandalism, and that he should explain his reverts. When he reverted the NPOV tag, he did not say this in the edit summary. Needless to say, when Kautilya claims the article was protected because of me it was because of Vanamonde's edit-warring, not because of my single revert. Similar false evidence is presented elsewhere in this page. If it is deemed necessary to reply to these, please let me know.

With rollback I meant automatic messages like "Undid revision XYZ". He reverts my edits on the BJP page so often, instead of first discussing them, or of adding tags to improve in the article, that I get discouraged editing the article at all. The problem is not that I am discussing the neutrality issues, the problem is that Vanamonde is not willing to fix them. Sometimes I think he just doesn't care. I told him: "Most of my concerns I already voiced months ago. I told you already then that one single sentence about Integral Humanism is by far not enough and even pointed you to sources, you could have fixed that during these months. You could also have asked yourself what could you do to make the article more neutral. Special care must be taken for npov for existing political parties, this has not yet been taken in this article." Integral Humanism is the official policy of the BJP. The article only included one single sentence on it. When I'm pointing this stuff out, Vanamonde now complains it is disruption.

Similar accusations could be made against Vanamonde (note that I don't find these serious enough to open a case against Vanamonde, and that is why I am marking it as "small", but they are at about the same level as those he is using against me): The MSM book "Religion and Human rights" says: after the Sabarmati Express train was forcibly stopped at Godhra Ciy and burned by a Muslim mob, resulting in the fiery deaths of 59 Hindu passengers mostly women, children, and seniors returning from the holy city of Ayodhya." But after the train burning, there were conspiracy theories that the Hindus burnt themselves suicidally for a staged trigger for riots, or that it was an accident that they were cooking something in the train, or that they provoked the attack, or that they were guilty and got what they deserved. But 30 Muslims have been convicted of the burning. India is not country like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or China, India is a democracy and in a country like India it would have been impossible for such a high profile case to convict 30 Muslims when they were innocent. There would have been riots all over the country. But Vanamonde is trying in several places to make appear the controversy that it was an accident as the dominant version, and the court conviction as not so important that it even needs to be considered in a summary. So there may be something wrong with how Vanamonde is using sources. Other users have told him on this issue that he using outdated sources: One user told him: "Her commentary is also outdated. The most comprehensive investigation represented by the Nanavati-Shah Commission was not completed at that time, and the court convictions of the accused had not taken place either. Now that we have all that additional information, her conclusions seem quite out of place in 2014." Talk:Godhra_train_burning/Archive_2 Vanamondes editing was also criticized here [90] "This is not the first time either. " or here and probably many other places [91] The Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War were the two cases of communalism with the largest numbers of victims, most of the victims of the latter were Hindus. Vanamondes simly removes this second-most important case.[92] Then VAnamonde is accusing me of editing BLP article. But most of my edits were removing BLP violations. On articles of BJP politicians, he is slanting the article to an overtly negative pov, like in Amit Shah, Uma Bharti, possibly LK Advani, and others. [93] The BJP article stated: Anju Gupta, an police officer in charge of Advani's security on the day of the demolition, appeared as a prominent witness before the commission. She stated that Advani and Joshi made provocative speeches that were a major factor in the mob's behaviour. But in this source, [94], it is said that the " BJP on Monday termed as "false" the statement of senior IPS officer Anju Gupta in a court against L K Advani over Babri Mosque demolition and said the veteran leader did not give any speech on the day the structure was razed down. " (on this one I'm not completely sure if it was Vanamonde, but he will say if it was not him). I believe there were other misrepresentations by Vanamonde and some discussed on the BJP talkpage . AP may better know about these.

  • Vanamonde (re)writes in the BJP article:"although clerics, including Muslim religious leaders, stated that they supported the verdict." But the source is actually only mentioning Muslim clerics, so it is a source misrepresentation (the first version, before Vanamonde, was only mentioning Muslim clerics, like in the source). Vanamonde wrote in the BJP article: "Historians studying the riots found that there was a high level of state complicity in the incidents" But the sources were not historians, so again misrepresentation.

Would I open a case against Vanamonde because of this? Probably not, but this is Vanamonde is doing here.

Will provide more 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. He is using misleading edit summary and using Koenraad Elst selectively for his POV.

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)

AmritasyaPutra says I am using Koenraad Elst "selectively". Assuming that I do, that is precisely what one must do with a fringe source, evaluate each piece of information, carefully separate facts from interpretations, and look for corroboration from other sources. The fact that he and Calypsomusic don't care do that is precisely how they turn Wikipedia into a battleground for their POVs. Calypsomusic has now gone to unprecedented lengths by effectively exercising a veto on GA nominations of this page by edit-warring. This can't allowed to continue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The latest reponse by Calypsomusic again illustrates my point. "How on earth can this be neutral?," he says, while completely ignoring the prescription to refer to "high-quality, independent, reliable secondary sources" for using the {{NPOV}} tag. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 31 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))

The requester has highlighted at least four main cases/areas of disruption against the defendant, of which, I witnessed only the last one (the BJP page). I'm aware that is doesn't highlight edit-warring per se, but it does reinforce the defendant's battleground attitude and refusal to drop the stick. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:53, 30 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)

Brews ohare

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 Brews ohare

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Brews ohare (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/Speed of light#Motions No 7 :
the Committee topic-bans Brews ohare indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 31 March 2015
  2. 31 March 2015
  3. 31 March 2015
  4. 31 March 2015
  5. 31 March 2015

The articles Bell's theorem and Free will theorem are very much physics articles.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Already warned and subsequently blocked twice under this topic-ban. See the block log and the records in WP:ARBSL
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

notification --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Brews ohare

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 Brews ohare

Statement by FyzixFighter

I am not currently involved in any dispute with this user, though I was a minor participant in the some of the disputes that led to his current ArbCom sanctions. I was surprised to see his recent edits on Bell's theorem and from there saw other edits that IMO violated the original topic ban from "all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed" and the later clarification/final warning linked to above. I would add a few more diffs of questionable edits:

In fact, his previous editing of Physical determinism was deemed to have violated the topic ban in the 14-Feb-2013 AE report. Quickly scanning some of his other recent edits, I see what looks like engaging in tendentious debates. I am especially troubled by what looks like edits to policy and essay pages to "clarify" ambiguities in such a way as to support his side of an argument in an editing dispute. This pattern of behavior was noted by others in a previous AN/I report. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Brews ohare

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Blatant violations of the topic ban and I'm intending to block for three months (given the last was for one month) but I'll wait a little while for Brews ohare's to make a statement in case we're missing something. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, agreed on all points. Unless Brews ohare can come up with one heck of an explanation, there's no real alternative but to block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)