Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arab Cowboy/Archive

Report date July 2 2009, 20:06 (UTC)

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * Evidence submitted by HelloAnnyong

First, hopefully I'm doing this correctly. The original Arab Cowboy case was declined due to lack of evidence. Since then, Arab Cowboy was banned for three days for edit warring on their talk page and WP:ANI. Only a few minutes after the block, Nefer Tweety immediately posted and once more declared that they were not a puppet, and did not know who AC was. Following this, an editor noted the short time period and suggested a CU lookup.

Since then, Nefer Tweety has offered help to Arab Cowboy to try to help get him unblocked. Following orders from AC, Tweety then asked another admin to review the block. It is curious that Tweety had not made any posts for days until AC started his edit warring again.

At the very least, Tweety is some sort of meatpuppet for AC. But I think there's something worth looking into here. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence submitted by User:Supreme Deliciousness

There has been a lot of arguing between me and 98.195.180.144 for a long time now over Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles. It started out over the first line of the article, He wants it to say that she is Egyptian. User 98.195.180.144 registered a couple days ago, his nickname is now Arab Cowboy. An RfC was created on the Asmahan talkpage, Everything here below was posted in about 2 hours. Everything can be seen here:

Arab Cowboy started talking about: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." Meaning that, that article edit is "agreed", It was not agreed, it was not some kind of "final status" article, no one ever suggested that, only him, and he kept on repeating this phrase. 

HelloAnnyong is a 3O mediator, here Arab Cowboy asks HelloAnyone "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process."

HelloAnnyong responds: "It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below."

Here Arab Cowboy says "Nationality in the lead aside"

Here Arab Cowboy starts talking about it again: "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further."

In the RfC, Arab Cowboys lists 5 points, three of them are: ''"The article should not be neutral to her nationality." "neutralize her nationality," and "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further."''. This post can be found at the RfC:

About one hour later a user named Nefer Tweety, shows up and says: "This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead. Nefer Tweety (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)"

The mediator HelloAnnyongs response: ":Your first edit on Wikipedia is commenting on an RfC? A rather suspicious start... I hope someone isn't... No one ever mentioned this: "15:48, 2 July 2009," phrase before, except Arab Cowboy.

Nefer Tweety later posts ''"A suspicious start"? Why? I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics. I never participated in one before, and I am not sure I will involve myself into this "edit warring". When I saw you opened RfC, and I read the options typed above, I thought of contributing by stating my opinion, and what I typed above was what I strongly supported from the very beginning. I was going to support either of the options anyway. If I had supported SD's point of view, would I have been considered SD's "socpuppet" by Arab Cowboy? What a disappointment!Nefer Tweety'' (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The guy registered a new account to make a comment on RfC while he could easily have made one without an account. "I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics." So he have been reading on wikipedia for a while. How come he registered now? There is something very strange going on. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours, a user named "Wolof359" showed up and starting editing the exact same articles I have been involved in using the exact same language. I think it was Arab Cowboy trying to fool people that I had created a second account to get me banned from Wikipedia.

This is his edits: contribs


 * At the Sea of Galilee article, I had written "Golan is not Israel." he wrote "also Syrian too because Golan Heights is not Israel."


 * At the druze article he did the same revert as me: ,


 * At the Mount Hermon Ski Resrt article I had written "not in Israel.", he wrote "not in Israel.":


 * At the Golan Heights article he did the exact same revert as I had done:,

I am involved in these four articles right now, but there was one article that he did not touch, and that was the Asmahan article, the same one that me and Arab Cowboy are arguing over. He let it be like Arab Cowboys edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims.

I am not Arab Cowboy's or anyone else's sockpuppet, but an independent, free-minded user! As for "15:48, 2 July 2009" that seems to be troubling SD, I copied it from earlier posted text. I have just seen this page. SD had not notified me which is probably a violation. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Ok! I’m tired of all that. It is so boring. I keep repeating the same thing. I don’t see anything wrong that I have done in what you mentioned above. I watch and contribute when I feel there is something worth mentioning. It happens that people are online at the same time. Nothing is really odd here, or at least this is what I think. I really have nothing to add, so sad! --Nefer Tweety (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User HelloAnnyong is lying about the facts and the sequence of edits. It is also inappropriate for him to bring another SPI against AC while AC is blocked and cannot respond. As soon as I made a contribution to the Talk page of Asmahan, 2 days ago, I was again called a sock-puppet by User Supreme Deliciousness, even after the first SPI showed "Insufficient evidence to suggest a link between Arab Boy and Nefer Tweety" so I made a complaint on ANI and I saw that AC got unfairly blocked for his response to my complaint, not for edit warring, as User HelloAnnyong alleges. So again, I responded on ANI and offered to help AC. --Nefer Tweety (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

--Arab Cowboy (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Annyong has proven himself to be the meatpuppet of the original false accuser, Supreme Deliciousness, and he's been doing SD's bidding for him everywhere, not just (repeatedly) on this page. Annyong has presented himself as a neutral third-opinion on Asmahan, yet he has been blindly agreeing with SD all along especially when SD was deliberately misquoting the sources.  Annyong would then run around the several Wikipedia Talk pages accusing me of being difficult and not accepting the fabricated "compromises" that he and SD had concocted.
 * Nefer Tweety is not my puppet, of any kind. They do not represent me and they do not take orders from me.  When I was blocked unfairly, in a clear case of abuse of admin authority, and not due to edit warring as Annyong has been lying about, NT offered to help me and I requested that they did so.  NT did not and does not take orders from me or from anyone else.  Annyong is lying about that too.
 * Sudden soaring interest in Asmahan by presumably new users, mine, and possibly NT's too, is the conclusion of a captivating, 30-episode series on her life on Egyptian public television.
 * Previous sock-puppetry case has been declined due to insufficient evidence because NT is not my puppet and will never be proven to be so.

I understand NT has been declared unrelated to me, Arab Cowboy. Who is this Wolof person? Please declare him/her "unrelated" unequivocally as well. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments by other users
 * Just wanted to chime in and point out that Nefer Tweety made a point of gloating on Supreme Deliciousness' block in this diff. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This could also be under code letter E. Supreme Deliciousness believes (see ) that Arab Cowboy used several sockpuppets during a 24 hour block. Sancho 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sancho, no, Wolof359 is the only user name that showed up during the block, those others are older.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I misread. Sancho 15:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add a request for a CU to accept this investigation - lots of problematic edits about, mudslinging, etc. Tan   &#124;   39  04:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusion as expected. Thanks, Avi. Tan   &#124;   39  05:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting. Thanks for looking into this. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * kabsa! --Arab Cowboy (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested by Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * CheckUser requests

Additional information needed: Please provide a code letter. SPCUClerkbot (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
 * - Please provide a code letter. Tiptoety  talk 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * for now. Insufficient evidence to suggest a link between Arab Boy and Nefer Tweety, and the Wolof account is a pretty clear Joe job and should be reviewed by an administrator on that basis. If additional evidence becomes available (current evidence boils down to Nefer Tweety creating an account and joining the RfC to support, in discussion, the edit preferred by Arab Boy) you can post it to this page and re-request CU. Nathan  T 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This was what Nefer Tweety stated in their RfC discussion from the start. They're entitled to do so. Is there any link between the Wolof Joe job and Arab Cowboy??? --Arab Cowboy (talk) 23:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Conclusions

A few open proxy IPs blocked. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, I believe I should disclose the following CheckUser result on this page. The following are ✅ as the same user:


 * CU template added per request on my talkpage after the submission of new evidence. Nathan  T 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Evidence here is iffy, and its possible Nishkid64 already performed this check but hadn't noted it (see within the collapse directly above). But given Tan's request and to get this old case moving along and off the docket, . Nathan  T 04:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusions
 * Checked due to Wolof359 sockpuppetry
 * There are likely more socks of Wolof359, but I am asking for confirmation due to some technical issues.
 * There are likely more socks of Wolof359, but I am asking for confirmation due to some technical issues.
 * There are likely more socks of Wolof359, but I am asking for confirmation due to some technical issues.
 * There are likely more socks of Wolof359, but I am asking for confirmation due to some technical issues.
 * I think leaving it at this for now is appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

-- Avi (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by User:Supreme Deliciousness
The history between me and Arab Cowboy is long. we had an arbitration case and on the 14th november the admins posted proposed remedys that would bann the both of us from changing the nationality or ethnicity of persons:

The Medjool account was created 3 days later on november 17th and he has made several edits in connection to identity which me and Arab Cowboy have been topic banned from And although he is a new user, his edits do not look like edits from a new user and he is also telling other people after only a couple of posts what is allowed  and what is unreliable:  What is reliable: what language is not acceptable:  See his editing history and you will find more, the same arrogant comments as Arab Cowboy.

Arab Cowboy had previously made some posts involving copts:  (removing anti-arab texts)

and the majority of Medjools posts are involving copts and also removing anti-arab texts for example:

Here Medjool says "redundancies" Arab Cowboys has said "redundant" on arabic wikipedia

Here Medjool says "Circular reference" something Arab Cowboys has also said in the past:  (IP 98 is Arab Cowboy you can check the history of the Asmahan article stretching back to april/may 2009, or ask admin Graeme Bartlett

Arab Cowboys bringing up stuff he has seen on TV Medjool bringing up stuff he has seen on TV

There has been a huge dispute between me and Arab Cowboy about the Asmahan article that has been going on for a long time. I posted several point of correction at the Asmhan talkpage, all involving things that Arab Cowboy had edited, many of them against the meditation that we had: Medjool showed up and with complete nonsense supported every single edit by Arab Cowboy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

CheckUser requests
Requested by Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

–MuZemike 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions
✅ I did not block, I leave that to others. I advise blocking Medjool and a stern warning for AC but??? ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Medjool indefinitely and tagged him as a sockpuuppet. I have also topic banned Arab Cowboy from all Asmahan-related articles (and their talk pages), per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan. NW ( Talk ) 18:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Evidence submitted by Supreme Deliciousness
I had last summer filed a SPI against Arab Cowboy and Nefeer Tweety, the CU showed that they were unrelated. There has now been an arbitration case, it was basically several disputes involving AC/NT against me over several articles. The only thing the Nefer Tweety account was and is used for, ever since it got registered, is to carry out the exact same edits as Arab Cowboy, in edit wars or other instances when AC himself can not. I believe that If AC is not controlling NT directly, then he is controlling him indirectly, and telling him what to do. Take a look at the entire editing history of NT, its a SPA only performing same edits as AC.

I have here below put together some evidence to show on the behaviour alone that NT is controlled by AC. I don't want a new CU, I'm asking for confirmation through the behavior. The WP Swedish/English Omar sharif picture part and specially the last part of the evidence is the most astonishing. There is no way that he didn't knew who it was.

This started at the beginning of the summer 2009:

There had been a lot of arguing between me and IP 98/Arab Cowboy for a long time over the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles. It started out over the first line of the article, He wanted it to say that she is Egyptian. An RfC was created on the Asmahan talkpage, Everything here below was posted in about 2 hours.

Arab Cowboy started talking about: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." Meaning that, that article edit is "agreed", It was not agreed, no one ever suggested that, only him, and he kept on repeating this phrase. "Your latest edit of 15:48, 2 July 2009 is acceptable and does not need to be changed further."

HelloAnnyong was a 3O mediator, here Arab Cowboy asks the 3O "Annyong, please explain what is involved in this RfC process."

HelloAnnyong responds: "It gets listed at a central location, and people will come here and read the discussion and leave their opinions below."

Here Arab Cowboy says "Nationality needs to be in lead"

About one hour later a newly created account named Nefer Tweety, showed up and says: ''"This is my first contribution to Wikipedia, but I have been following the debate for some time. My position is that I support the current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009. And I believe her Egyptian nationality needs to be in the lead.

No one ever mentioned this: "15:48, 2 July 2009," phrase before, except Arab Cowboy.

Nefer Tweety later posts: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=299944919&oldid=299929090 "A suspicious start"? Why? I find it interesting to read the debates going on here about various topics. I never participated in one before, and I am not sure I will involve myself into this "edit warring". When I saw you opened RfC, and I read the options typed above, I thought of contributing by stating my opinion, and what I typed above was what I strongly supported from the very beginning. I was going to support either of the options anyway. If I had supported SD's point of view, would I have been considered SD's "socpuppet" by Arab Cowboy? What a disappointment!Nefer Tweety]

Later Arab Cowboy was banned for three days. Only a few minutes after the block, Nefer Tweety immediately posted and once more declared that they were not a puppet, and did not know who AC was. Following this, an editor noted the short time period and suggested a CU lookup.

Since then, Nefer Tweety offered help to Arab Cowboy to try to help get him unblocked. Following orders from AC, Tweety then asked another admin to review the block. It is curious that Tweety had not made any posts for days until AC started his edit warring again.

If you look at the behaviour of Arab Cowboy, anything he doesn't like, he edits wars to gets his way through, In this edit I made a post that Arab Cowboys obviously wouldn't like. Having to do with Asmahans ethnicity, the whole dispute was about if she was Syrian or Egyptian, but when I posted this Arab Cowboy did not revert, in fact, he did not even say one single word about it at the talkpage, instead the day after, the newly registered Nefer Tweety account posted this

In that post, please pay attention to these sentences: NT in the above link: "It was a statement, even if true, that was made as a boastful bluff to a "friend" and was taken out of context by SD." a while later, AC says the same thing: Nr 3."It was said by Asmahan as some sort of bluff on one occasion, not a statement of identity."

NT in the above link: "As the sources show, Asmahan had not lived in Suwayda in childhood" - AC, 1C."In fact, other sources show that Asmahan did not live in Suwayda in childhood"

NT in the above link: "Additionally, when it was time for her to choose between Syrian and Egyptian citizenships, as this source (http://ramsesthesecond.livejournal.com/32835.html) shows, she demanded a divorce a second time from Hassan and set on a road trip to Egypt to salvage her Egyptian citizenship” - AC: "I also gather from the sources that this is when the Egyptian government attempted to withdraw her citizenship on the grounds of dual nationality, and that, faced with this choice, she left Syria and returned to Egypt, married to Ahmed Salim, to reclaim her citizenship."

During past mediations, Nefer Tweety has jumped in at certain exact times when AC "needs it" to do the same edits as Arab Cowboy does. After ACs three edits going against mediation: Nefer Tweety jumps in  and straight out lies, same as with Arab Cowoys behavior "all had been agreed in the Discussion page" and more of the exact same ACs behavior:  complete reverts to non agreed edits while saying "It is rude to revert someone else's work."

Doing more of ACs edits while claiming I should "stay away from editing Egyptian articles" AC:  NT:  something AC have also said: (Response to Statement by CactusWriter)  NT:

On the 27th July 16:18 AC uploaded a photo exactly 5 minutes later account Nefer Tweety uploads one

When I started the arb case in September 2009, AC said: "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. (at the bottom of Statement by Arab Cowboy)

Compare his comments with NTs: In February 2010 NT said in an enforcement request: "He's become too crafty at fooling the arbitrators and the system with his "borderline" violations and endless complaints that are a waste of time for all involved." (Nr 1 in Additional comments by editor filing complaint)

In October 2009, at Swedish wikipedia, AC changed the Omar Sharif picture, from a new one, to an old one, he edit warred with an admin over this:

In February 2010, at english wikipedia, NT did the exact same move, he removed the same new picture to replace it with the very same old one that AC had done at Swedish wikipedia: At this time AC was topic banned from the Omar Sharif article.

At the Omar Sharif article, AC removed sourced info based on things he claimed he had seen on TV:

Several months later NT claimed to have seen the same TV show:

NT carries out ACs edits at Omar Sharif:  and has continued to do so:

On the 25th October, AC had not made a post at wikipedia for almost 24 hours, he makes a post at Arabic wikipedia and NT who had not made a post at Wikipedia for 21 days, makes a post in the same hour at english Wikipedia:

AC created a sockpuppet and used it to repeatedly violate his topic ban and restriction at the Coptic and Coptic Identity articles. He edit warred over this with a user named Lanternix.

At the Coptic article he for example: changes the population: from 12,700,000 to 18,000,000 - 4,500,000 to 16,000,000, removes: "most scholars and international observers assume that the Christian share of Egypt's population is higher than stated by the Egyptian government." "The Copts were severely affected by Nasser's nationalization policies", ". Ignorant of the Egyptian language for the most part, the Arabs confused the Egyptian new year's celebrations..." "In modern Egyptian Arabic, the word koftes (pl. kafatsa),..." and "In the same year, father Morkos Aziz the prominent priest in Cairo declared that the number of Copts (inside Egypt) exceeds 16 million." and adds text from the "The 2009 American Pew Forum on Religion and Public" at least to three different places.

He replaces the word "invasion" with "Emancipation" in the title of the =The Arab-Muslim Invasion of Egypt= section. and removes form the text that Arabs "invaded" Egypt, he also removes "Heavy taxation was one of the reasons behind Egyptian organized resistance.." and replaces it with "granted the status of mawali. Mawalis were in turn subject to the Zakat taxation, as well as their obligation to serve in the Muslim armies." Changes "violent persecutions of caliph Al-Hakim" to "eccentricities"

He removes the "The Arabs imposed a special tax, known as Jizya, on the Christians who acquired the status of dhimmis, and all native Egyptians..." he removes the coptic flag part, He removes freecopts.net orderofmaltacolombia.org netanyahu.org/strugaginemc.html from the article and coptsunited.com freecopts.net copts.com from the see also section.

After Arab Cowboys sockpuppet edits had been in the Coptic article for 1,5 months, Lanternix comes back and reverts it, and only a few days later, the Nefer Tweety account who has previously never made one single edit there shows up and removes the strike out comments from ACs sockpuppet at the talkpage (and also formats the comments by ACs sockpuppet) and then he reverts the entire article back almost two months back to the same version by ACs sockpuppet:  Not caring about edits made by 30 editors and bots, the exact same thing he did at the Asmahan article:

At the Coptic identity article AC with his sockpuppet for example:  changed the numbers from 15% to 20% to between 5% and 10%, he removes the U.S. Bill Has Egypt's Copts Squirming, Washington Institute and christianpost.com sources, added "though these claims have not been independently verified"  he removes these parts: "For instance, while the Arab invaders of Egypt were accustomed to subjugation of women...." "imposed on the Egyptians by the new dictatorship." "Foreigners visiting Egypt noted that Egyptians did not possess any Arab sentiment in the first half of the 20th century." "It looked to Egypt's pre-Islamic past and argued that Egypt was part of a larger Mediterranean civilization. This ideology stressed the role of the Nile River and the Mediterranean Sea." "also known as "Pharaonism"

At the Coptic identity talkpage NT removes the strike out comments from ACs sockpuppet, (and formats ACs sockpuppets comments)  Also notice here that a lot of the signatures of different editors are changed. Think about this, why would they change? For example Lanternix signature consisting of Coptic scripture is changed to "?????????" everywhere and also user Seb_az86556s signature is changed everywhere. The reason for this is, this happens when someone copy's text and then sends it through for example email or msn, the scripture is then not recognized and it shows as such, and this is what I believe has happened. I believe that AC knows NT, and tells him what to do through a channel outside of Wikipedia and at instances sends him entire article texts to paste in the article for him.

NT then does the same thing to Coptic identity, ACs sockpuppet edits had been there for 1,5 months, it gets reverted, and only a few days later, the Nefer Tweety account is used to revert the edits AC had done with his sockpuppet Look closely at that edit, he re adds the population numbers, "5% and 10%" he removes the "Washington Institute" and "christianpost" sources.

NT was blocked for doing ACs edit:

At the end of last summer, AC had removed a sentence not according to his personal liking, On 2 September 2009, AC said on the talkpage: "I removed Beirut and Palestine because 'Alia did not "move to" them. They were merely stops on her way to Egypt.", I recently asked Nishdiani to take a look at some corrections that I had presented with sources, I had gotten permission from the arb drafter to do that: Nr 4 in corrections: Nishdiani later ads his suggestion to the article, 7 months after ACs comment at the talkpage, NT shows up and without participating at the talkpage, ads "stopped in" according to what AC had said 7 months before. Nefer Tweety has done this without saying anything at the talkpage, he just changed what me and Nishhdiani talked about and typed "corrections" in the edit summary, doing ACs edit. NT is continuing with the same old behavior of AC and NT which led to arbitration, anything that was talked about at the talkpage they just changed against what had been said on the talkpage. And NT is still continuing with this now and as always exclusively performing the exact same edits as AC.

Very Important: And this right here is by far the most astonishing "coincidence": I added a list of corrections at the Asmahan talkpage, the Nefer Tweety account went to ACs sockpuppet before it was revealed, pretended he didn't know who it was, and "asked" him if he could reply to my comments: NT had before ACs sockpuppet was exposed not made any edits at any of the articles AC edited with his sockpuppet.

Of the millions of Wikipedia users, the account he contacted to reply to my posts just happened to be controlled by the same user NT has exclusively used his account to back for 8-9 months. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by accused parties
See Defending yourself against claims.

SD has for the last 9 months made every effort to be the sole editor of Asmahan and other pages in the Asmahan arbitration case. Other editors are either banned from contributing or are completely disgusted by SD's ways that they are staying away for the time being. I, personally, have no time for more endless arguments on the talk pages, however, I will revert any statements that have not received consensus with all parties prior to the arbitration.SD is subject to a topic ban specifically related to Asmahan due to his extremely disruptive behavior, while I am not under any restriction. While I am busy to be a regular contributor, I cannot allow SD's continued pushing of a Syrian agenda. -- Nefer Tweety (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Clerk, patrolling admin and checkuser comments
No action taken for two reasons: first, Arab Cowboy and Nafer Tweety were checked last year and came back completely ❌; submitting additional SPI cases will not change that. Second, No other admin has been willing to act on this case, likely because of those findings above. –MuZemike 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold on, the recent closure was based on the CU from last year, I specifically said that there had already been a CU, and that the confirmation was needed through the behaviour. So far no admin has explained at the SPI how its possible that the NT account contacted ACs sock. Which lead me to believe that no admin at the SPI has looked through the evidence.


 * The only admin so far that have went through the evidence was at the ANI and she said it looked quacky and that I should have opened it here instead.


 * I'm gonna contact some admins tonight to try to go through this. Please don't close it yet. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've requested assistance at the WP:AN about this case. This needs closure. –MuZemike 21:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Another admin who has looked at it, Shirik, has said that the evidence is pretty compelling but since he is relatively new to SPI he wont act on it:. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've examined the editing histories of both. I was reluctant to do so being very new to SPI and a new admin, but it's sat on AN and almost stagnated here. I concur with Shirik's informal findings- there is definitely some kind of connection between the two accounts. They obviously both tag team with each other and noticeably the second account makes appeals to admins on behalf of the first to have blocks lifted. I'm willing to act on these conclusions if I'm expected to, but I'd like the input of MuZemike or another experienced SPI clerk and admin. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   12:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One more admin now see the connection. HJ Mitchell, could you comment on this edit. The fact that after exclusively using the NT account for 7-8 months to revert to ACs edits on several articles, the NT account then went to ACs sockpuppet before it was revealed that AC controlled it, and "asked" him if he could go to the Asmahan article where the main dispute was. This could not have been a coincidence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it proves anything in itself, however, combined with the evidence above and the stark similarity between the editing patterns of the two, I'd say it only adds to my conclusion that the two accounts are most definitely related one way or another. I don;t know what action should be taken, though- should either or both accounts be blocked and if so, for how long? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly as you say, combined with the evidence above it proves the deception that has been going on, it proves the connection that AC controls the NT account in one way or another. Look at the evidence, NT first showed up right after AC had just found out what a RfC was. And then for almost a year now the NT accounts sole purpose on wikipeda is to revert to ACs edit in edit wars and to back AC. So of course this was not a coincidence.


 * Arab Cowboy has used a sockpuppet before to repeatedly violate both his topic ban and restriction. The evidence here above shows the deception that he orchestrated from the very beginning with the NT account which he controls, which led to arbitration at the Asmahan article. He could never have done what he did without his NT puppet. Both these two accounts should be permanently banned from wikipedia for massive and repeated puppetry and disruption and deception and should never be allowed to edit the Asmahan or any other article again. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, especially given the length of the block log of someone with so few edits. Can I just indef the pair of them or should I wait for more comments? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   23:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have reviewed this case now that I have a little time to spare. It takes very strong evidence to overcome an ❌ CU, but and it has its limits. The long-term pattern of behavior here strongly suggests that there is some connection between those two accounts - what sort of connection, we cannot tell for sure; it could be a crafty sockpuppeteer (though I doubt that, given that AC's sock was detected by CU and blocked on that basis); it could be some sort of off-wiki collaboration between different people, which would explain the CU result; it could all be just a coincidence, but the long term pattern is such that I consider it very unlikely. The exact nature of the connection is, however, irrelevant. It is my view that the behavior of the two accounts here, whether controlled by a single person or by different people, amounts to abusive usage of multiple accounts, either by sockpuppetry, or by meatpuppetry and/or canvassing. Due to the AC's lengthy history of blocks, I have blocked both accounts indefinitely. I leave it to someone else to determine what, if any, tags should be applied. Tim Song (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Good call, Tim. I stand b that action 100% to the extent that if it hadn't been for the ❌, I probably would have blocked both per WP:DUCK. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Marking as closed then, unless there is something else to say? NW ( Talk ) 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)