Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan/Evidence

Response to account Nefer Tweety's evidence
This was moved from to the talk page from Supreme Deliciousness' evidence section.  hmwith  ☮  23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although the sockpuppet investigation could not prove that account Nefer tweety is a socpuppet, if you had followed this conflict and account Nefer Tweety posts it is obvious that Nefer Tweety at least is a meat puppet for Arab Cowboy, the way he first showed up at the RfC one hour after it was opened, he had never posted before,  talking about "current version of 15:48, 2 July 2009." 

The same talk that Arab Cowboy had said: "15:48, 2 July 2009, is agreed." (it was not)

When Arab Cowboy was banned for three days a few minutes after the block, account Nefer Tweety immediately posted following this, an editor noted the short time period and suggested a CU lookup.

Since then, account Nefer Tweety offered help to AC 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.

The way account 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 the straight out lies we are familiar with, with Arab Cowoys behavior "all had been agreed in the Discussion page" and more of the exact same ACs behavior:  complete revertions to non agreed edits while saying "It is rude to revert someone else's work."

Omar Sharif:

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

And on the 27th July 16:18 AC uploaded a photo exactly 5 minutes later account Nefer Tweety uploads one --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to CactusWriter's evidence
This was moved from to the talk page from Supreme Deliciousness' evidence section.  hmwith  ☮  23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"warned for edit warring at Druze on June 7" - I believe it was a misplaced warning from him, two edits in two days is not 3rr and user Nsaum75 was clearly POV pushing trying to make it look like Golan is part of Israel.  ''

"warned for racism at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel on June 16" - This was not racism. I had made a post at the Arabs in Israel article showing that Druze in Israel are not Arabs, people did not agree with me, I didn't make the changes to the article. I obeyed what happened on the talkpage, this can not be compared to Arab Cowboys behavior of going against mediation on talkpage over and over and over again.

"warned for anti-Israeli POV pushing at Golan Heights on June 18"  - The link here cactus posted does not lead to anything but the Golan article. Update "warned for anti-Israeli POV pushing" I had made that edit before I knew wikipedia rules, it was copied straight from the source. So "POV" such as "stubborn" was copied from the source and there was no "zionist entity" at all in the source or the text I had added so I dont know where he got that from.

"warned for 3RR at Quneitra Crossing and List of archaeoastronomical sites by country on August 7" The link here cactus posted was not a 3rr report on me, it was I that had made a report and Nableezy asked me to remove it because he had made a better one on the same user we was reporting.

"emphasizing remote Syrian background at Omar Sharif." The source said that both his parents was Syrian, that is not remote, I after saw that it was a bad source and used a New York Times article for saying he is from a Lebanese-Egyptian family, but it has been removed by AC

"warned for persistent contentious editing across multiple articles on August 26" Of course Ghajar is not in Israel, that is Israeli POV. You know Undue weight, the rest of the world considers it inside the borders of Syria.

"reverting text at Asmahan by cherry picking one mediator statement and ignoring another." I did not cherry pick, during the mediation with Ameer as written above he said change of "return" at one point to "moved" and the basis was that the other sentence was "moving back" Arab Cowboy changed to "relocated" as can be seen in your diff, the reason why I changed to return was that it was on the basis of that the other segment was "moving back" and it had been deleted in the article, it was right after the copy violation and revertion of the article and that other segment had been deleted at that time. When it came back i changed it back to follow the mediation while AC at that time had changed both against mediation.

"SD stated that The days of Israeli domination of Arab articles are soon over. as a reason for edit warring on food articles." - This is not true, this was only a statement I made at a talkpage, not a reason for edit warring.

"Created the article Israeli theft of Arab cuisine (now snow deleted by Afd) than added links for it at hummus,falafel, Za'atar and Kibbeh." So what? Dont I have the right to create artifices? I re added 90% of the texts segments to the Israeli cuisine article without problems.

"Politicizes Mount Hermon entry at list of ski resorts" I removed that the mountain is in Israel, the sentence was removed and this was no problem.

The rest of Cactus points are comments by me at talkpages that I have a right to do, I have the right to express what I believe is my neutral opinions about Israel at talkpages. And concerning the Asmahan, Farid, Hosny, Anwar and other biography articles me and AC have had problems with, I have always followed agreements at the talkpage, which is far from what can be said about AC. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Nsaum75
I have enough evidence to show user Nsaum75 votestacking on several occasions, him running around to pro-Israeli editors and notifying them of occurring votes to sway the outcome of them, I can also show him adding several israeli images in Arab food articles so they are even greater than the Arab ones. And much more Israeli POV pushing. But this arbitration is about the problems between me and AC on Asmahan and other related places and we shouldn't shift the focus from that. If Cactus or Nsaum75 wants to open something else about Israel they can do that and I will reply there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Response to Arab Cowboy's evidence
AC claims that "I assert that I am not engaged in any edit wars with any users other than Supreme Deliciousness." Evidence that this is not true, him edit warring with others on Golan Heights Youssef Chahine:   and Omar Sharif:    notice here that FayssalF  protected the article and asked for the most reliable source  and  AC later removes reliable source and text:

HelloAnnyong was not a fake 3O, I made a request at the 3O page, and he answered to it.

Arab Cowboy once again lies about what happened with the Diaa mediation although this has been explained many times before.

The "four sneak edits" he is accusing me of: Diaa had let me ad things freely for a periode of time,==> and tells AC to not alter anything I write and then AC went against the mediation process and deleted it, I brought it back:

Dias response here: was based on him believing and replying to Arab Cowboys false allegations of "four sneak edits" that doesn't exit.

AC also claims that "I had alerted Diaa to those sneak edits made by Supreme Deliciousness, but Diaa did not act on my alerts" without providing any diffs, Diaa didn't do anything because there wasn't any "four sneak edits"

When Arab Cowboy did not like the outcome of the mediation he started editing the article against agreements at the talkpage. and also ==> 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, two hours later Arab Cowboy once again started changing the things that I had just fixed with mediator Diaas permission  This is what caused Diaa to leave.

You can read more about this at the Second response to statement by Arab Cowboy here:

AC says in "Collapse of Al-Ameer son’s mediation effort" that "after laborious efforts to rebuild the article without plagiarism"... The sentences I had written about in "Arab Cowboy changes texts after mediation against what was agreed upon and against sources" was not plagiarized. AC had added massive copyrighted material, after Cactus reverted the article I had rewritten some things and added them to the article. AC changes sentence previously agreed in mediation so it doesn't follow source,after copyright problem I had rewritten it without plagiarism: AC changes the meaning against what was agreed during mediation and makes stuff up: "Asmahan was asked to sing in the aristocratic family celebrations, and to get their support, she felt obligated". The source says: "That loyalty is hard to measure, since she and other singers were dependent upon the Egyptian elites, as were the recording studios. They were required to sing songs of praise for the king and his line and other songs with republican themes."

And other non-plagiarized sections AC changed, against mediation: "Alia fled with her children for Damascus and refused to return". Plagiarism admin expert Cactus said: AC changes so it doesn't follow the mediation or source, Beirut came after and was written,  AC also removes "childhood years in Jabal al-Druze" suggested by Cactus to keep the important fact without paraphrase  childhood in suwayda/jabal was agreed during mediation with Diaa. Me suggest: "childhood in Suweida" Diaa: "done"

At "Supreme Deliciousness's provoking behavior against me" he claims that I was "inviting other users to intensify the edit wars against me" .. I thought they were admins and asked for help.

The vast majority of the diffs AC has posted do not lead to what he is claiming for example at "Supreme Deliciousness’s engagement in edit wars" he linked to when someone notified me about arbitration request and another link was when I had written that someone was pretending to be me And this is normal discussion:

And at "Collapse of Diaa Abdelmoneim’s mediation effort" "Supreme Deliciousness at least as guilty of offenses he's accusing me of" "Supreme Deliciousness use of insulting words against me" "Supreme Deliciousness use of insulting words against other users" "Supreme Deliciousness’s racial and derogatory comments about other nations" and also other places, the vast majority of the diffs also do not lead to what he is claiming.

"cherry-picking and grabbing of admins’ words" is explained at Response to CactusWriter's evidence above. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong's response to Arab Cowboy's evidence
I don't have much to say, other than that I initially came to the page through a neutral request made on the 3O page. The original request was made here, and I neutralized the statement and added a timestamp per project guidelines. Several days later, I took on the 3O with this edit. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Arab Cowboy's response to Supreme Deliciousness' evidence
This was moved from to the talk page from Arab Cowboy's evidence section.  hmwith  ☮  00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As Cactus also concurs, my problems on Wikipedia have been almost exclusively with that user, Supreme Deliciousness. He has proven to be the most childish, nagging, persistent, annoying, scheming, opportunist with a secret agenda that I've ever had to deal with. My edits on Golan were probably the first that I ever made on Wikipedia, at a time when I knew nothing about the policies of WP, the existence of admins and edit warring. I tried to protect Syria's rights to the Golan. But, after witnessing Supreme Deliciousness's behavior, I quit that effort because he proved to be unworthy of my efforts. Except for Hala Gorani, my efforts have been exclusively defensive, to protect Egyptian bios from his intrusions. His claim that I have edit-warred with Lebanese bebe on Omar Sharif and Youssef Chahine is false. Lebanese bebe was a novice and she knew nothing about proper, sourced editing for articles, yet she received proddings from Supreme Deliciousness to keep going on her ignorant track. Admin Fayssal will concur that he protected Omar Sharif in error because he had not seen a certain sentence already within the article that resolved the whole issue. Fayssal closed that debate by saying that he had not seen that sentence and therefore he unprotected the article with instructions to Lebanese bebe to "Pls stop reinserting other material""''.