Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: hmwith (Talk)  Drafting arbitrator: John Vandenberg (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case Opened on 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

• Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party

• Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Diaa abdelmoneim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Al Ameer son (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• CactusWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• RFC: Talk:Asmahan/Archive 2#RfC

There has been a constant war over the Asmahan article for I think half a year now. It started out with her nationality and has since then escalated. I was the one that asked for all the meditations/3O above. Arab Cowboy did not listen to the 3O. At the RFC two people showed up, one account and one IP both had never posted at wikipedia before and they used same language as him. The first mediator he did not listen to, the second one he partially listened to after repeated statements from the admin, and even then he continued to edit the article against what was said.

Right now he has changed sections in the early life and elsewhere so they no longer follow the sources, sentences that has previously been agreed upon during mediation. This includes a sentence that an administrator just recently said how it should be. He is also constantly adding pov statements, statements that do not follow the sources and repeating sentences he himself have added several times in the article. He is also removing template sources.

This is very disruptive behavior and editing from him and has been going on for a very, very long time now and it will never stop until action is taken. I'm so sick and tired of this. I have requested mediations and 3O, there is nothing left but his, I really hope you will accept arbitration because if not, I'm afraid this will only continue. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Vassyana

Vassyana its all mixed up, the things that has been previously discussed over and over again during mediation he has now changed against what was agreed upon and this is also against what the sources say, so norn and rsn has not been contacted since it was not required before, but its the same sections that there has been mediation and agreement over before. I have sought administrator assistance by CIreland and Al Ameer son. (and also have tried to get help from CactusWriter) This problem can not be solved without arbitration, several mediations have failed, user Arab Cowboy is changing sentences that was agreed upon during mediation's, and this is continuing after half a year. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by Arab Cowboy

What Arab Cowboy is saying here below is not true, the reason why the mediation with Diaa failed was because of several times during the mediation Arab Cowboy went ahead and changed several areas of the article that had not been agreed upon during the mediation. Some can bee seen here: [1][2] Diaa:"I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions" Arab Cowboy did this several times and this is the reason why Diaa left. These "sneak edits" that Arab Cowboy is accusing me of is not true and has been explained many times at the talkpage [3]yet he keeps on repeating it. After cactus reverted the article for massive copyrighted sections mostly added by Arab Cowboy, Arab Cowboy has changed non-plagiarized sections so they no longer follow what was agreed during mediation or what the sources say, he has not as he says done any "laborious efforts to rebuild the article without plagiarism".. the sections in question was already re-written without plagiarism and added to the article including one sentence that admin cactus who is an expert on plagiarism suggested.[4] And his claims here below that I have called people "Jews like you..." is a complete [5] statement that has never happened.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second response to statement by Arab Cowboy

Arab Cowboys repeated accusations are false and as I have written above he keeps on repeating the same thing over and over again although this has already been proven to not be true, the "four sneak edits" he is accusing me of: [6][7][8] Diaas comment in Arab Cowboys post was in response and based on him believing the false accusations by Arab Cowboy of "four sneak edits". Diaa left the mediation because of the behavior of Arab Cowboy. When Arab Cowboy did not like the outcome of the mediation he started editing the article against agreements at the talkpage. He did not just ad things but he removed and changed massive things that had not been agreed upon at the talkpage. The mediation was almost over and Diaa asked for adding of reffs to the article: [9] Here Arab Cowboy asks for one day to ad the reffs and Diaa gives him one day to ad them [10] The very next day he did these massive changes to the article: [11][12] which caused the mediation to collapse.

Diaa (bless his heart) came back and tried to help: [13][14]"I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions, which was part of my decision to abstain from any mediation for a while." "I told you to add reffs before I remove all unreffed stuff to clear things. You added more than reffs." Diaa gave me some time to edit the article to fix and bring back texts that Arab Cowboy had removed and changed without approval at the mediation,[15] two hours later Arab Cowboy once again started changing the things that I had just fixed with mediator Diaas permission [16] This is what caused Diaa to leave.[17]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to statement by CactusWriter

Concerning the categories in the other articles, when I wanted to remove a newly added category, Egypt stub and WP Egypt from the Atrash article (added by Arab Cowboy) admin Cactus told me to go to WP Egypt, [18] I did that and they agreed with me and they themselves removed it. [19] Then when Arab Cowboy wanted to delete categorizes from several Syrian related articles, people of Syrian descent, after having started several edit wars Cactus told him to make a post at WP Egypt and wait for consensus. [20] He did not get support from WP Egypt,[21][22][23][24] yet he right away started to delete them from the articles [25][26][27]--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wish to engage in personal attacks, but given Supreme Deliciousness's statements above, I will state that he is a flat out, unabashed LIAR. What is the subject of this artbitration now? What is this all about? What specifically are we arbitrating? Is there no end to this childish nagging? Do you understand the extent of the resources that you have wasted, not just my own, but of countless other editors, admins, and mediators?

This whole conflict is the result of SD's agenda of inserting "Syrian" into Egyptian and other articles. Admin Cactus has told him repeatedly that these insertions do and will continue to antagonize Egyptians and others. SD will only not stop voluntarily; he must be banned from editing Egyptian articles. He's inserted his "Syrian" agenda into all of these articles: Tamer Hosny, Omar Sharif, Anwar Wagdi and Farid al-Atrash. This will not be tolerated. I do not care if I am also banned from editing Syrian articles; I do nothing to antagonize others.

The so-called meditaor HelloAnnyong was brought over to the article by SD. In addition to his negligence, HelloAnnyong has proven to be totally allied with SD and his opinions could not be taken as reliable. I will not accept HelloAnnyong's input into this arbitration. When two other editors contributed to the RfC, SD and HelloAnnyong collaboratively filed two SPI reports, which were decided as "declined" and "unrelated". Yet, SD has not stopped calling those editors my sock-puppets. Diaa's mediation did not continue because SD was sneaking edits past Diaa during a period when he had been specifically instructed to stop editing. Al Ameer's mediation was successful, but following its conclusion, SD filed a plagiarism report against the article - he had personally been constantly nagging that as little as single words were not close enough to the sources, and as soon as they were close enough to his liking, he filed a plagiarism report. Admin Cactus reverted the whole article back to 11 July as a result, and all mediation efforts and our 3 months' work was destroyed. And now, after laborious efforts to rebuild the article without plagiarism, SD claims that the article is not close enough to the sources. If we bring it back closer to the sources, he will file another complaint claiming plagiarism. Where is this going to stop? This is a huge waste of resources for editors and administrators, all to serve SD's secret "Syrian" agenda. He has called people, "Jews like you..." and they have called him back, "You are a disgrace to Wikipedia, if not the human race..." He has been fooling admins for so long by his constant childish nagging. Go ahead, if you wish, and start another round of "arbitration"... You are wasting your time. SD will not stop until he is topic banned.

Cheers, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Statement by CactusWriter

I support the topic ban. I am willing to accept a ban from editing "Syrian" srticles if User Supreme Deliciousness is simultaneously banned from editing "Egyptian" articles. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Statement by Supreme Deliciouness

In reference to how Diaa's mediation ended, has stated the following: "AC I instructed the two of you not to edit freely, the two of you ignored my instructions, the two of you were at fault, I didn't see those edits after the 24 hour edit time." Diaa had not seen SD's sneaky edits that he had made after the 24-hour free edit period, and the No-Edit directive from Diaa. When I started to edit in response to sneaky edits and Diaa's inaction to them (because he had not seen SD's edits), SD began his trademark complaints that I was freely editing the article. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a whole lot to say, but there are some things that I think should be mentioned. First, I got involved in all this from a listing I saw on WP:3O, and from there it pretty much spiraled out of control. While I was active on the page, we really did try to get some outside help. There were atleastfiveseparaterequests on AN and ANI for help, all with limited results. There were several blocks issued to both users for edit warring, but that doesn't seem to have helped at all.

It should be noted, I think, that both Arab Cowboy and Supreme Deliciousness have taken this battle to a number of other pages, including Tamer Hosny, Omar Sharif, Anwar Wagdi and Farid al-Atrash. And although a number of other people have gotten involved to try to resolve this, it seems as if nothing has helped. Awhile after I became involved, Nefer Tweety, a new user, showed up and started battling against Supreme Deliciousness on the exact same pages. So we took it to WP:SPI (archive) on the advice of another editor, though it turned out to be false. (I see that that user is at it.) Perhaps s/he should also be included on this request.

I left the page a month ago after getting repeatedly slammed by Arab Cowboy. To be honest, I've moved on and I don't really want to have anything to do with this page anymore. If anything I wrote above needs clarification, then I'll do as such. — HelloAnnyong^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After arriving at Asmahan to resolve a report filed at WP:Copyright Problems, I spent three weeks between these two editors while they argued over even the most minor edits in a number of articles. I am impressed only by the previous patience shown by numerous mediators and administrators. User:Arab Cowboy has been blocked five times in only three months for edit warring. (this includes twice in June while an unregistered IP [28]). User:Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked once and warned multiple times for contentious editing, POV pushing, incivility and inflammatory remarks.

I agree with HelloAnnyong. This an extended content dispute between two editors which has spilled across Asmahan, Atrash, Tamer Hosny, Anwar Wagdi, Farid al-Atrash, Soad Hosny and Omar Sharif. The clash results from, IMO, User:Supreme Deliciousness stressing Syrian connections at the expense or to the detriment of other nationalities; and User:Arab Cowboy stressing Egyptian connections at the expense or to the detriment of Syrian background; while both editors cherry-pick sources (as well as mediator statements) to push point of view.

When pressed by administrators, they have made some efforts to seek outside opinion or consensus (as with their latest requests at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt). However, their actions continue to devolve into quick reversions and in-fighting. My thought, which I expressed to each editor, was that they were both on the verge of topic bans.

If, at this point, further info or diffs are required, let me know. —CactusWriter|^needles 10:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Waiting on a statement from Arab Cowboy. Also, could you please inform the previous mediators and outside commenters about this request so they may have an opportunity to comment on the request? I have a few questions as well. Have any of the content noticeboards been used to solicit further outside input, such as the no original research noticeboard or reliable sources noticeboard? Has anyone sought administrator assistance in resolving the conduct concerns at the administrators' and/or incidents noticeboards? What prevents this from being resolved at the community level, thus requiring arbitration? --Vassyana (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please add Nefer Tweety to the list of parties and inform them of this request. If there are any other editors directly involved in this dispute, please make sure they are added and informed. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Accept. HelloAnnyong's statement and links, along with a closer look at article discussions, make it clear to me that insisting on further noticeboard usage will only prolong and worsen this dispute. There are certainly conduct issues for us to examine. Vassyana (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept- the fact that the dispute has spilled over into other articles, and that noticeboard threads have seemingly not helped, means that a full review of what happened here and a resolution to the dispute, is needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept due to the failure of other means to resolve the dispute, and its escalating nature. Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• AcceptWizardman 01:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept—Rlevse • Talk • 02:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept to look at the behavior of both parties. --FayssalF-^{Wiki me up®} 02:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept per my colleagues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, including, but not limited to, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; all relevant worldviews should be represented in proportion to the prevalence of views in reliable sources. Undue weight should not be given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is also contrary to this unoptionalguiding editorial principle of Wikipedia.

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Making unsupported accusations of such misconduct by other editors, particularly where this is done in repeatedly or in a bad-faith attempt to gain an advantage in a content dispute, is also unacceptable.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

4) Wikipedia relies on a consensus model. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process, in lieu of soapboxing, edit warring, or other inappropriate behavior. Abuse of the consensus model and process, such as misrepresenting consensus or poisoning the well, is disruptive.

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

5) The ethnic or national identification of a given individual is a complex subject that may not have clear answers in some cases. The individual who is the subject of a biography may have, in good faith, made conflicting statements during their lifetime about their ethnicity or heritage. For the purposes of writing a Wikipedia biography, editors should be sensitive to such statements by an individual, but also should give appropriate weight to the statements made about that individual in reliable sources. Where there is a conflict between these two types of sources, it may take judgment and consensus-building to find the proper balance between them.

Passed 6 to 1 (1 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

6) Edit-warring is harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1) The scope of the dispute between Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is biographies of Middle-Eastern persons who have been described as having more than one ethnicity and/or nationality, with Asmahan being the locus of the dispute, and editors Nefer Tweety (talk · contribs) and HelloAnnyong (talk · contribs) becoming involved.

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2) Several editors tried to mediate the dispute after a request for a third opinion and an article request for comment[29], however the dispute has not been taken to the Mediation Cabal or Mediation Committee.

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

3) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred over the identity of Middle Eastern persons,[30][31] and has been previously blocked as a result.[32]

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

4) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edit-warred over the identity of Middle Eastern persons,[33][34] and has been previously blocked as a result.[35]

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

5) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) appear to have personalised this dispute to the point that collaboration is no longer feasible. [36][37][38][39]

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1.2) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Arab Cowboy may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2) Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Arab Cowboy is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should the user exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 0 (2 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

3.2) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year. Should this restriction be violated, Supreme Deliciousness may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

4) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Supreme Deliciousness is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and biographies of living persons violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should the user exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

Passed 6 to 0 (2 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

5) The article Asmahan, all closely related articles and project pages, and all associated talk pages, are placed on article probation for six months.

Passed 5 to 2 (1 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
6) If protracted disputes concerning the national or ethnic identity of an individual arise in an article within the scope of this case, then the article may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months. Articles placed under article probation must be logged at #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions, and a notice placed on the accompanying talk page.

Passed 5 to 1 (2 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
7) Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on articles under probation if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

Passed 6 to 0 (2 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
8) Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Passed 6 to 0 (2 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Rescinded by motion at 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

9) Editors wishing to edit in the areas dealt with in this case are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Passed 6 to 0 (1 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

1) For the purpose of imposing sanctions under the provisions of this case, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she has not previously participated in any content disputes on articles in the area of conflict or non-administrative conflict with affected editors. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of discretionary sanctions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

2) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7 to 0 (1 abstained) at 19:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Remedies 6, 7, and 8 of the Asmahan case (relating to article probation and discretionary sanctions) are rescinded.

Remedy 2 of the Waterboarding case ("General restriction") is rescinded. Where appropriate, the discretionary sanctions authorized in the American politics 2 case may continue to be used.

Any actions previously taken in accordance with the foregoing remedies remain in force, and appeals and modifications therefrom shall be governed by the standard procedure for arbitration enforcement appeals.

Passed 12 to 0 by motion at 19:47, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.