Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Proposed motions re: Arab Cowboy
On the basis of all evidence presented here, shows Arab Cowboys very disruptive behavior, going against mediation over and over again for 4-5 months now, lying, removing sourced material and adding original research, racist comments, edit warring, votestacking, and this is only a small part of it, I propose that:

1.) Arab Cowboy gets indefinitely banned from wikipeda without any kind of possibility to request coming back, not now, nor in the future.

2.) Arab Cowboy gets indefinitely banned from wikipeda,if some admin lets him back in the future he is topic banned from editing the Asmahan article and any Egypt or Arab related biography article. All other edits and posts he makes at articles/talpages have to be cleared by some admin who "adopts" him.

3.) Arab Cowboy gets indefinitely banned from wikipeda, if some admin lets him back in the future he is topic banned from editing the Asmahan article and any Egypt or Arab related biography article.

4.) Arab Cowboy gets banned 1 year from wikipeda, and after that he is topic banned from editing the Asmahan article and any other Egypt or Arab related biography article. All other edits and posts he makes at articles/talpgages have to be cleared by some admin who "adopts" him.

5.) Arab Cowboy gets banned 1 year from wikipeda, and after that he is topic banned from editing the Asmahan article and any other Egypt or Arab related biography article.

6.) Arab Cowboy gets topic banned from editing the Asmahan article and any other Egypt or Arab related biography article. All other edits and posts he makes at articles/talpages have to be cleared by some admin who "adopts" him.

7.) Arab Cowboy gets topic banned from editing the Asmahan article and any other Egypt or Arab related biography article.

8.) Arab Cowboy gets topic banned from editing the Asmahan article

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Motion Proposed by Arab Cowboy
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. However, I also suggest that Supreme Deliciousness be banned from editing ALL Middle Eastern articles because of his inflammatory edits on articles related to nations other than Egypt, such as here, here, here, here, here, and here, here, here, here, here, here, at least...


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Question 1
CactusWriter has provided evidence that you have edit-warred a number of times on a number of articles. You have been blocked a few of times for this and related problems. In this comment you disagree with the basis of the blocks. Do you accept that you have been edit-warring at times? If so, what measures will you take to prevent this happening again?

Answer 1
Technically speaking, yes, I have DEFENSIVELY edit-warred a number of times. My intentions were never to do so; it was out of (1) lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policies, (2) frustration over Supreme Deliciouness's forays into articles related to Egypt and Egyptians, when he is NOT Egyptian and his Syrian agenda is all too obvious. I have not been engaged in edit wars with any editors other than Supreme Deliciousness. In that comment, I did not disagree with with the basis of ALL the blocks, but a couple of them. In fact, I did not disagree with Cactus's own blocking of myself; I disagreed with the fact that he did not block Supreme Deliciousness at the same time, on a technicality (the sheer number of reverts) although Cactus stated that Supreme Deliciousness was "equally culpable" on that occasion. Due to lack of time, I have been approaching Wikipedia through trial and error, but this has not proven very feasible, so I am investing more time reading the policy pages. (I have to say that, although impressively sophisticated, the system like any other is not fool-proof, as evidenced by the fact that Supreme Deliciousness could avoid getting blocked on that (Cactus's) occasion and many others by stopping one revert short of the 3RR.) More lately, such as here, I have been trying to avoid falling into the frustration trap and allowing time for an admin to take a second look at the situation and advise accordingly.

Question 2
Could you please explain why these edits were undone as vandalism.

Answer 2
In both of these instances, Supreme Deliciousness had not provided an edit summary so the intention of his edits was, excpet for promoting his Syrian Agenda, unclear. In the case of Soad Hosny, he relied on Egypt's government information service's website, the very same webiste that he calls the propaganda mouthpiece of a dictator regime (when it is not his place to make such claims), and an online news blog that had been lifted off that same website, to make a claim that Soad Hosny was of Syrian descent, when clearly she was not and there was no reliable source to support that claim. Admin Sancho had specifically told Supreme Deliciousness that making these claims was "original research" and an "unacceptable leap" and was not allowed, to which Supreme Deliciousness would reply that what Sancho had said about Omar Sharif did not apply to other bios. In spite of the many efforts to stop him from making those baseless claims, he would continue doing so, barely stopping short of violating the 3RR, and clearly abusing the system. This is vandalism in my opinion. In the case of Atrash, the most notable figures in that article were Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash, both of which were clearly Egyptian citizens - a fact that Supreme Deliciousness did not wish to acknowledge. He removed reference to their being Egyptian, and in my opinion, that is vandalism. He wanted to claim them and their music for Syria, and only Syria, although they had immigrated to Egypt in their childhood and "never again sang in the Syrian dialect". He argued that Asmahan's music was Syrian because "she was a Syrian women from Syria that sang songs", and although sources confirmed that Asmahan never sang in Syrian, he would classify the genre of her music as Syrian, labelling any other opinion as vandalism (please see his edit summary in that link). This has been his primary objective in ALL his edits.

Question 3
Please explain why you labeled this edit as a copyright violation.

Answer 3
Supreme Deliciousness's addition in that edit was "was of Syrian origin". The source where that statement was lifted also stated "was of Syrian origin". If you follow the arguments made by Supreme Deliciousness himself, after he had just filed a plagiarism complaint regarding Asmahan shortly before making that edit, as well as those of Cactus, you will judge that edit as a copyright violation. Please note that I agree with neither the statement of the source in question nor this interpretation of copyright law.

Question 4
Please describe the two aspects of the current article Asmahan which you believe are the most erroneous, and why. How will you go about addressing these problems?

Answer 4
I have already addressed the aspects that I have found to be most erroneous with the article. Following Cactus's revert of the article back to July 11, I have put in a tremendous amount of effort to rebuild it without copyright violation, through internalizing the information found in the sources and then expressing them in my own words. I have also implemented probably all of the agreements made with the mediators, without cherry-picking (which is Supreme Deliciousness's means of editing). Except for the Voice characteristics sections that still needs work, the article now is in good condition and should NOT be changed.

The Biographies of Asmahan suggest she was happier being an Egyptian than a Syrian statement is Cactus's, not mine, and it reflects Cactus's understanding of the source, p. 19. Of course, Supreme Deliciousness wants it removed because it does not promote his Syrian agenda. Clearly, Supreme Deliciousness cherry-picks mediators' words and runs with them to the article and, as he does here, he fights all opposing understandings.

Supreme Deliciousness's attempts to portray Asmahan as having spent her childhood in Syria (the Jabal) is erroneous. Sources (here, p. 36 and here) indicate that she has spent her childhood in Lebanon and Turkey and only went to Syria for visits before immigrating to Egypt. Respectively, the sources state: "She remembered a happy and carefree period. She did not actually spend much time in the Jabal itself and probably remembered visits in the early 1920s. Still, it was the Jabal Druze that had imprinted itself as "home" on her consciousness, rather then her family's residences in Turkey and Beirut..." and "Born in 1918, she lived in Lebanon until 1920, when her father was appointed Governor of the Province of Demergi in Turkey." Even if they owned a home in the Jabal, it was not their primary residence as the sources show, for (1) here, p. 39 Asmahan's mother considered it to be the father's home, not hers and she preferred to live in Beirut, and (2) here, p. 36 they only went there for visits. Nothing in the quotations that Supreme Deliciousness provides shows that the home in the Jabal was the family residence.

The "Egypt's Influence on Asmahan's Career" title was first introduced by mediator Diaa Abdelmoneim, not me. I think it is accurate and should stay.

Question 5
What do you consider to be the key factor preventing Asmahan from becoming stable?

Answer 5
Supreme Deliciousness's Syrian Agenda, and his endless nagging, sneak edits, and abuse of resources to get his way.

He just won't stop! Sometimes, mediators have had to give in to Supreme Deliciousness's opinions, even when POV and erroneous, just to stop his nagging.

Please see the following sneak edits made by him in the last few days in Arabic and French Wikipedia (he did not sign in with his username and used different IP addresses - which is sockpuppetry - to avoid being included in this arbitration case and to avoid being detected or associated with his own edits):

Edit 1 (31 October) on Omar Sharif: Supreme Deliciousness goes against mediation process on Omar Sharif and arbitration currently underway and against Admin Sancho's instructions: "SD, avoid original research. Even the leap from "Sharif's parents were Lebanese", to "Sharif is of Lebanese descent" is going too far in an article about a living personcle about a living person." and again he claims that Omar Sharif was of Lebanese descent in Arabic Wikipedia using the sockpuppet IP: 85.229.128.197, as well as in this edit in French Wikipedia, using the sockpuppet IP: 85.229.139.128. These are more acts of deception by Supreme Deliciousness.

Edit 2 (30 October) on Farid al-Atrash: Supreme Deliciousness goes against very laborious mediation processes on Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash that compromised the matter as to call them Syrian-Egyptian. In this edit, this edit, this edit, and this edit Supreme Deliciousness, using the sockpuppet IP: 85.229.139.128, again labels Farid al-Atrash as Syrian, and only Syrian.

Edit 3 (29 October) on Asmahan: Supreme Deliciousness again promotes his Syrian agenda using the sockpuppet IP: 85.229.128.197.

Question 6
Please provide an example of working with another contributor to reach a compromise solution. Why do you think it was successful?

Answer 6
Choice of Lead paragraph for Asmahan and settling atheism allegations about Omar Sharif. The compromise solutions of these two examples were successful because (1) I did my homework and thoroughly researched the matter before I defended my position in each case; (2) I exercised patience and fought the temptation to get frustrated with the other contributors' opinions which I viewed as incorrect; and (3) I welcomed the participation of a third-opinion on the matter to provide a fresh look and an impartial assessment in each case.

Question 7
In your answer to question 1, you said you "defensively edit-warred". Could you clarify what you mean by "defensively"? Also, you said you did so out of "frustration over Supreme Deliciouness's forays into articles related to Egypt and Egyptians, when he is NOT Egyptian and his Syrian agenda is all too obvious." Do you consider this a justification for your actions? Could you explain this further?

Question 8
Do you understand now that 3RR is a bright line which must never be crossed? Could you explain why Supreme Deliciousness was not blocked?

Question 9
In your answer to question 3, you compare copying of the phrase "was of Syrian origin" to the very pronounced plagiarism at Talk:Asmahan. Do you think this is a fair comparison?

Also, you appear to be saying that you called the edit a copyright violation even when you didn't believe it was. Do you consider that appropriate conduct?

Question 10
The compromise on Asmahan is noted, however that article ended up at arbitration, so it isn't a very good example.

I can see that the discussion about Omar Sharif was heated, and there was a slow edit war, but it was controlled and reasonable.

Following on from question 6, can you provide any examples of where someone has found a problem with your edit, or proven you wrong in a discussion? How did you respond?

Question 1
CactusWriter has provided evidence that you have edit-warred a number of times on a number of articles. You have been blocked for this and warned many times. Do you accept that you have been edit-warring at times? If so, what measures will you take to prevent this happening again?

Answer 1
Yes I accept that I sometimes have been involved in edit warring, and its not something I am proud over or that I have enjoyed doing. But to my defense, the vast majority of them was in the past. The only edit wars lately are with Arab Cowboy who has went against 3 mediations now. I also want to say that I edit a lot of Arab-Israeli articles and in general there is a lot of fighting at those and although I have in the past been involved in edit wars at those, I am not anymore. There was some edit warring in the past at some Arab-Israel articles with user User:Fipplet who just like Arab Cowboy did not listen to what happened on the talkpage, did not follow the sources or listen to anyone else, and had an agenda. But that is over now. I used the talkpage and also made a post at the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration  and the problem was solved at the druze article, I have also done this at other problems  and the issue has also been solved. And I have continued to use talkpages to solve problems at several Arab-Israel articles. I have learnt the rules of wikipedia and I am trying to follow them, but its hard when Arab Cowboy do not.

Asking for this arbitration was a part of it, I have always wanted to prevent edit wars, thats why I was the one that asked for the 3 mediations, and now this arbitration. I want to put an end to this.

Question 2
Please explain why you thought it was appropriate to add Gaza Strip to the article Ghetto,.

Answer 2
Because as I had written in the second diff, Gaza is by many compared to a ghetto. A simple Goggle search will show this. There is even a film called Gaza ghetto. The way its like an enclosed enclave with a different ethnic population than Israel proper, and the social problems and the human conditions there compared to Israel proper. I and many see a resemblance to a ghetto, that's why I added it. And I added it to the "See also" section, It wasn't like I added something unsourced to the actual article.

And I did this a couple times, people did not agree with me, and I stopped, there wasn't any real problem or any edit warring going on.

Question 3
Please explain why you labeled this source as "unreliable egyptian government propaganda".

Answer 3
Because its a website run by the Egyptian government, and just like all middle eastern and north african governments its a dictatorship where the government runs the media and uses the media to spread its propaganda. And since there is a neutral book saying something else then this dictatorship mouthpiece, it should be more reliable than that site.

Question 4
Please describe the two aspects of the current article Asmahan which you believe are the most erroneous, and why. How will you go about addressing these problems?

Answer 4
There are several problems. The removal of "childhood years in Jabal al-Druze" and adding of "and then to Beirut" at an inappropriate place so it becomes a repeat. The changing of sentence to "Asmahan was asked to sing in the aristocratic family celebrations, and to get their support, she felt obligated to sing songs of tribute to Egypt and its rulers." 

The reason for this is because this is not what was agreed during the mediations, and this is not what the sources say. Any attempt by Arab Cowboy to label these sentences as plagiarism is straight out lies that have been debunked here.

And there is also other problems. After the last mediation AC changed the entire "Career" section to "Egypt's Influence on Asmahan's Career" which was not a natural development of the mediation process as can bee seen in this diff where it first got tagged for CV  And added a sentence not following the source and also is pov, that had not been through and approved in any of the mediations: "Biographies of Asmahan suggest she was happier being an Egyptian than a Syrian."

I am addressing these issues by filing this arbitration report. The first three points I have brought up have already been through mediations and agreed over. We have been through three mediations and every single time Arab Cowboy has not followed the mediation process and changed texts against what was agreed upon. So what am I supposed to do now? Start a fourth round of mediation he will violate? And then let him edit war until he gets his way. You tell me, what am I supposed to do?

Update: Notice that AC says in his answer that "Supreme Deliciousness's attempts to portray Asmahan as having spent her childhood in Syria (the Jabal) is erroneous.".. Although with both mediations, both mediators supported the adding of childhood in Jabal and objected to the removal of it: with diaa:  with al ameer:  and after the plagarism issue Cactus had rewritten it   and even then AC removed it on the claim that it was copy violations [] and then at his answer here he claims that that this was my attempts to portray Asmahan as having lived in Jabal. So although this has been discussed and agreed over many times over and over, he still goes against the mediations and edit wars until he gets his way.

He has also here posted a half quote from the book Asmahans Secrets in an attempt to lie, "forgetting" these parts: p36:"Asmahan told her friend and admirer al-Tab`i about her childhood in the mountains of the Druze." "The family had a servant to help with the children, who were allowed to play pretty much where they willed. A large stone house blended in with the local surroundings, dominated as they were by the gray and stony landscape." p38: "aerial bombardment of the al-Atrash home in al-Qrayya"

As I have shown in the diffs above, during the meditations it was agreed that the sentence "childhood in Jabal" was to be included several times, the mediators saw the full quote from Asmahans Secrets, and the fact that Arab Cowboy has not accepted this, removed it because he doesn't like it, lied about CVs to remove it, edit warred to remove it, and then here continues his lies even posting a half quote, shows his true intentions once again.

Arab Cowboy continues his lies by claiming that it says on p36 in Asmahans Secrets that "they only went there for visits", which it does not. And when AC wanted to remove it the mediator said no:

Question 5
What do you consider to be the key factor preventing Asmahan from becoming stable?

Answer 5
Arab Cowboy changes texts against agreements at the mediations, over and over and over again.

Question 6
Please provide an example of working with another contributor to reach a compromise solution. Why do you think it was successful?

Answer 6
Neve Ativ - Israeli settlement

Although my "opponents" there where of completely different political views than me, it was possible to have a normal, and adult conversation with them and reach a solution because of the personal qualities of the involved parties. We were all using common sense and respecting each other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Question 7
Other than the neutral book you refer to in your response to Q3, did you have any other sources that said "something else" on this point?

Answer 7
At that point of time in that diff you posted in Q3, I used "Popular Culture in the Arab World" – ”dashing Syrian actor and director” Later that day I made a post at the talkpage with another book source I had found ”Dream makers on the Nile: a portrait of Egyptian cinema” - ”Anwar Wagdi was of Syrian origin” 

Question 8
In these two edits, you restore "Lebanese" using a movies.nytimes.com citation with edit summaries "new york times is more reliable" and "readeable sources is more reliable". Do you believe those edits were correct? If not, please explain them.

Answer 8
Yes, I do believe they were correct.

Question 9
In Arab Cowboy's answer 5, he suggests that you have been editing as an IP on other projects such as French and Arabic Wikipedia. While he calls them sockpuppets, IP edits are not sockpuppets. Would you like to confirm or deny that these edits are your own? If you do not want to say publicly, please email me your answer.

Answer 9
I have made edits at other versions of wikipedia. The edits I have made have been in accordance with agreements at english wikipedia. I can go into details of this if you want. Arab Cowboys accusations are false and it is him that are doing edits in violation of agreements at English wikipedia. Just like he did repeatedly at the Asmahan article. He has nothing to say so after all his lies had been exposed he just took what I proved him of doing and claimed I was doing it. It has gotten to the point where he is edit waring with others at Arabic wikiepdia, and even edit warring with an administrator at swedish wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Question 10
Following on from question 6, can you provide a few examples of where someone has found a problem with your edit, or proven you wrong in a discussion? How did you respond?

Answer 10
At "List of Arab members of the Knesset" I removed druze members and it got reverted by user Number 75  Later at the talkpage he told me: "If you want to make such a change, then first change the main article on Arab citizens of Israel and get consensus there that Druze are not part of the Arab community. If you fail to do so, I will revert any attempts at a unilateral change here." So I went to the "Arab citizens of Israel" article and made my case at the talkpage, people did not agree with me, so I abandoned it.

At the Golan article I added some info about Syrian prisoners in Israeli jails, user Hertz1888 added some info about the offenses and I rewrought it  he reverted it so I tried something else and continued his edit and explained in more detail what offenses they were  and since that, that info has been stable.

As I mentioned before here when Cactus reverted my edit at Atrash and told me to go to WP Egypt.

At one point of time I decided to move a lot of articles from "As" "Ash" "Ar" "At" etc to "Al" since I believed that was the correct thing to do. It was really a huge mistake. During a request to change a category someone mentioned that searching on google gave lesser hits on the once I was trying to change to and that the original name is the most widely used. So I later withdrew requests  and changed several articles back to its original name.(Not all of them though sine I had gotten myself into a huge mess with all the maps, categories, templates and articles and lost track of everything)     --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

=Proposed final decision=

Proposed principles
In my view, Supreme Deliciousness has been the cause of all the edit wars on Asmahan, Farid al-Atrash, Anwar Wagdi, Soad Hosny, Tamer Hosny, in addition to Zaatar, Qatayef, Hummus, Golan Heights, and many others. I see that Supreme Deliciousness’s agenda of pushing Syrian interest and POV overrides all other, including Wikipedia rules, truth of information, and even basic honesty. His editing style is outright insulting to other nations and other users. I wish to see him banned from editing Wikipedia all together. If this will not be possible, then I want him banned from editing Arab-related articles, and ‘’especially Egyptian ones’’. I, and other editors, am determined to protect Egyptian articles from Supreme Deliciousness’s Syrian agenda, and if he continues to push his POV into these articles, then it will be an open invitation to more edit warring. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposals by John Vandenberg
Due to user:Tony1's repeated concerns about repeating principles, I have pared this down to the most relevant, retaining a few that a new user should be aware of if they haplessly end up being warned to read this decision early in their career. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal 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. Use of the site for other purposes—including, but not limited to, advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle—is prohibited.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Ncmvocalist presents an excellent revised version below. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * OK; but prefer with slight change in sentence order, as well as extra links and example - have drafted a proposal below to reflect those changes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight
2) One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is that the articles are neutral, which demands that undue weight is not given to aspects which are peripheral to the topic, and all relevant worldviews are represented in proportion to the prevalence of views in reliable sources.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I believe Ncmvocalist presents a stronger alternative below. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I'm not sure this covers enough; will think over it again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * revised. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, but have tried an alternative below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight for a work in progress
3) Wikipedia articles are a work in progress. The strength of statements made should be guarded by the quality and quantity of the sources utilised to support these statements. Legitimate concerns about neutrality should be the catalyst for improved sourcing, and/or a reduction in the weight placed upon the statements made.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I object to "concerns about neutrality". I am deeply uncomfortable with anything that may inadvertently give editors the impression that we work towards some objective or balanced measure of neutrality in our articles, or reinforce such. "Neutrality" on Wikipedia is nothing more or less than editorial neutrality in presenting a subject in accord with the body of reliable sources. Otherwise, I think this is a fine principle. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the basis for your rejection. It needs a bit of refinement.  The thrust is that if there is contention about identity and/or nationality, the contentious statements either need to be removed, watered down, and/or more sources need to be consulted and the body of the article needs expansion.  In these situations, over-simplistic statements such as " is " shouldn't be excused by the "work in progress" promise. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Except the middle sentence which I think could also cover a bit more/less and be worded a bit differently, noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Noted in combination with alternative below; noting also that quality of sources alludes to verifiably using the best and most reputable sources. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Absolutely, without reservation. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There was consensus, we had people that mediated at the talkpage, and several times these agreements was violated by Arab Cowboy: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Identity disputes
5) Identity 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This is an excellent principle about a matter of common dispute that has received relatively little attention in previous arbitration cases. It is not only worth noting, but this principle provides a fairly concise overview and advice about such disputes. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Copyedited, but noted; revert if it was too much. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Scope
1) The scope of the dispute between and  is biographies of Middle-Eastern persons with more than one ethnicity and/or nationality, with Asmahan being the locus of the dispute, and editors  and   becoming involved.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Seems accurate. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good background and lacunae note. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * We have been through two mediations  Go to the talkpage history and you will find months of mediation. This rfC link here shows several posts not shown above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit-warring over Middle-Eastern persons
3) has previously been blocked for edit-warring over the identity of Middle-Eastern persons.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard background. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Has there been edit-warring that didn't result in blocks? If it's been minimal or there's been none, perhaps should state "has been blocked for edit-warring over the identity of Middle-Eastern persons." Same for 4. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been a log of edit-warring that didnt result in blocks, usually because mediators were trying to calm the situation down, and keep everyone on board. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, copyedited both. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

4) has previously been blocked for edit-warring over the identity of Middle-Eastern persons.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard background. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Intractable differences
5) and  appear to have personalised this dispute to the point that collaboration is no longer feasible.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Why the word "sincerely"? I'd prefer to drop it. Risker (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Accurate, important to note, and deeply unfortunate. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * During the two mediations we had at Asmahan (or if you want to call it "collarborations" as you apparently do not reckognize them as mediations) I always followed the directions at the talkpage, while Arab Cowboy repeatedly did not: Collaboration with me has always been feasible, collaboration with him is not as proven several times.


 * Even at this workshop after first having lied about CVs to remove the text he didn't like, he here claimed the same text was erroneous although two mediators including an admin had already told him it was not  and the fact that no remedy has been suggested against this repeated behavior is a disgrace.  --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted, but would prefer "appear to have sincerely personalised this dispute to the point that...." Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Copyedit and add a diff for review. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done; though stronger evidence may also be used if available. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Risker (I'm not sure why I hadn't pruned it from the original to begin with). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Template
5)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
6)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Arab Cowboy restricted
1) is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months.  He may recommend a change on the appropriate talk page, however he must provide two reliable sources to support the recommendation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Considering the talk page behavior involved in this dispute, I'm not sure that the allowance is wise without an accompanying restriction to manage that aspect. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * This proposed remedie is a half solution to a problem that doesn't exist! The "Syrian-Egyptian" was settled a long time ago and neither of us has changed it since, There is no problem with this at Asmahan. The problem is this:  And now:  the repeated violations against the mediations or "collaborations" at the talkpage which you have provided no solution to. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose standard probation could also be considered in both cases. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Deliciousness restricted
2) is prohibited from changing the ethnicity or nationality of a person for 12 months. He may recommend a change on the appropriate talk page, however he must provide two reliable sources to support the recommendation.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Considering the talk page behavior involved in this dispute, I'm not sure that the allowance is wise without an accompanying restriction to manage that aspect. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Protracted identity disputes
3) Protracted identity disputes within the scope of this case may be placed under article probation by an uninvolved administrator for up to six months. Articles placed under article probation must be logged at, and a notice placed on the accompanying talk page.

In order to avoid the article being left in the wrong version, articles placed on probation should be advertised on Content noticeboard, and uninvolved editors are requested to reduce the weight given to insufficiently supported statements regarding a persons identity where it is disputed. Respectable attempts at doing so will not affect an editors status as "uninvolved" for the purposes of this decision.

Extensions or reapplications of article probation should be discussed on the article talk page, and advertised on Content noticeboard.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The second paragraph is a bit problematic for me. One main issue is that the (somewhat tongue in cheek) point of the "wrong version" link is that there is no wrong version or that a protected article will always be protected in the wrong version. Regarding the noticeboard, shouldn't this be dealt with at ECN rather than the more general CN? Also, I'm not sure that the instructions for the uninvolved editors is ideal. For example, I can easily see the removal of assertions based on unreliable sources or no sources at all being disputed as a complete removal instead of a reduction. My concerns all noted, I do believe this is a quite excellent approach to take in this matter. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions for articles under probation
4) Any uninvolved administrator may, on 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. The sanctions imposed may include bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

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.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * The intention here is that only articles on probation are affected. This ensures that the dispute has been recognised, logged, and advertised on the content noticeboard.  Only then are administrators empowered to impose discretionary sanctions if editors continue to cause problems.  Ideally disputes of this kind will only take six months to resolve, in which case the number of articles covered by this case should remain quite low. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems unreasonably long. I'm not entirely clear why anything but the first sentence and second paragraph are at all necessary for this remedy. The second-to-last sentence of the closing paragraph seems much better suited to a separate "editors reminded" remedy. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted, except for the blocks of up to one year. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the year long blocks. Blocks are covered in the enforcement section, so I dont think admins need them here. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's quite long, and support Vassyana's proposed amendment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Appeal of discretionary sanctions
5) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I do not think this is necessary to note, but it may well be worth noting as a general point. That said, I am not at all comfortable with the AN requirement. Reversing administrative decisions of this nature should only be undertaken with great caution, and preferably through discussion with the original acting admin. Things have already moved towards it being much more difficult to overturn admin actions. We don't need to add fuel to that fire. It should suffice to note that ArbCom will consider sanctions for the ill-considered and/or unsupported reversals of arbitration enforcement actions. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Asmahan
6) The article Asmahan is immediately placed under article probation for six months.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Good. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted; I think the community should probably take particular notice of the word "immediately" as it is deliberately inserted in this remedy. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved administrators
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. 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I would add "or non-administrative conflict with affected editors" or some analogue to the qualifier on "uninvolved" status. This has been a major point of contention in many disputes. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Noted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement by block
2) Should any user subject to discretionary sanctions or editing restrictions in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, for up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All discretionary sanctions and blocks are to be logged at.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I always dislike these limited block provisions. However, that is nothing new. This is standard. Vassyana (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * OK with 5 blocks in this case, but one month would be too limited. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If they on the receiving end of one month blocks, one would hope that they decide to abide by the sanctions. If they don't, a community ban would be appropriate.  Or am I misjudging? John Vandenberg (chat) 15:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're misjudging, but I'd prefer alligning that with the case remedies rather than making the community sort that out separately. Where arbitrary time limits did not shackle individual admins, the community hasn't been required to specifically use its own means/process; at that point, it would be useful for individual admins to have the discretion to impose blocks (of escalating duration) on a case by case basis. It also contributes to admin experience/judgement. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia
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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Comprehensive and well-stated. Vassyana (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view and undue weight
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 unoptional guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Absolutely. Vassyana (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Alternative. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: