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

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

3O supported the use of "Arab" in lead [1][2] I did that and brought back trigger words that had previously been deleted by Arab Cowboy (was originally in the article) and other fixes with sources. [3]

Arab Cowboy does not listen, removes the "Arab" in the first lead and continues to change trigger words that were originally from the beginning in the article and which the removal of had not been agreed, also the removal of other sourced texts. [4] 3O reverts it, since he supports that version: [5] I ad more background info (everything sourced): [6]

Arab Cowboy not only reverts the recently added sourced texts, but also claims it is not supported by the evidence, and also reverts everything else that the 3O supported like the use of "Arab" in the lead: [7] and also straight out lies: ”Nationality needs to be in "lead" as agreed in Discussion page”

Diaa had let me (and later AC) to ad things freely for a period of times,[8]==>[9] and tells AC to not alter anything I write [10]and then AC went against the mediation process and deleted some things I had added, I brought them back: [11]

When Arab Cowboy did not like the outcome of the mediation he started editing the article against agreements at the talkpage. He did not just ad things but he removed and changed massive things that had not been agreed upon at the talkpage. The mediation was almost over and Diaa asked for adding of reffs: [12] Here Arab Cowboy asks for one day to ad the reffs and Diaa gives him one day to ad them [13] The very next day he did these massive changes to the article: [14][15] and also [16]==>[17] which caused the mediation to collapse.

Diaa came back: [18] [19] "I find what AC did with changing everything without even respecting my input shows much disrespect to my instructions, which was part of my decision to abstain from any mediation for a while." "I told you to add reffs before I remove all unreffed stuff to clear things. You added more than reffs." Diaa gave me some time to edit the article to fix and bring back texts that Arab Cowboy had removed and changed without approval at the mediation,[20] two hours later Arab Cowboy once again started changing the things that I had just fixed with mediator Diaas permission [21] This is what caused Diaa to leave.[22]

[23][24]

[25] [26]

Authors Opinion: [27] 3:[28] "either use no opinion at all, or keep both but attribute them to the author" - [29] [30] [31]

Note: Nothing written below had any plagiarism, you can read more here

[32] AC does not believe Asmahan lived in Suwayda, and believes she "only went to the Jabal for visits" Ameer: "So this should not be contested." [33] Ameer: "this confirms the validity of the sentence" AC later ads it: [34]

[35] "Alia fled with her children for Damascus and refused to return".(okeyed by plagiarism expert admin Cactus [36] [37]) AC changes so it doesn't follow the mediation or source, Beirut came after and was written, [38] AC also removes "childhood years in Jabal al-Druze" suggested by Cactus to keep the important fact without paraphrase [39][40] childhood in suwayda/jabal was agreed during mediation with Diaa. Me suggest: "childhood in Suweida" Diaa: "done" [41]

[42][43] removes what was agreed and replaces it with "residence in" [44]

Changes sentence previously agreed so it doesn't follow source,[45][46][47][48]after copyright problem I had rewritten it:[49] AC changes the meaning and makes stuff up: "Asmahan was asked to sing in the aristocratic family celebrations, and to get their support, she felt obligated". [50][51][52]

Made up sentence not following source "Biographies of Asmahan suggest she was happier being an Egyptian than a Syrian.", POV, repeated segments: [53][54] [55] removal of source template [56]

[57] [58]

When I wanted to remove a newly added category, Egypt stub, WP Egypt from the Atrash article CactusWriter told me to go to WP Egypt, [59] I did, and they agreed with me and they themselves removed it. [60] Then when Arab Cowboy wanted to delete categorizes from several Syrian related articles, after having started several edit wars Cactus told him to make a post at WP Egypt and wait for consensus. [61] He did not get support at WP Egypt,[62][63][64][65] yet he right away started to delete them from the articles [66] [67] [68]

He did not ask any member of WP Egypt to comment, only two accounts, Nefer Tweety [69], who has backed AC several times [70] [71][72] [73] [74] [75] [76]

And Cleo22 [77]. An account which is almost exclusively used to delete background information from biography articles, people of other origins living in Egypt. To only contact these two is clearly inappropriate canvassing and votestacking [78]

At Anwar Wagdy he says [79] "removing biased information that contradicts with other sources.".. And he removes source and text that says Wagdy is of Syrian descent and replaces it with " His father, Yehia Wagdy El-Fattal, immigrated to Egypt from Syria with his family in the 19th century for economic reasons." Notice that there is nothing in the source in that section that supports the text he has changed to about Wagdys background yet he says it "contradicts with other sources" And then at the talkpage he says: [80] "We don't know for sure if it was his father or grandfather who had immigrated to Egypt," So what he did was to delete a source and a sourced sentence and replaced it with a sentence that is not sourced and that he himself dont know is true and yet claims it "contradicts with other sources"

Arabic Farid al-Atrash: Deleting ”Origin=Syria” in Infobox: [81]

Also falsely claims that I have called people "Jews like you..."

Hala Gorani: Deleting sourced info and source while claiming: ”no references” [82]

If further explanation of something is needed, just ask.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Clerk note: Responses to Nefer Tweety and CactusWriter have been moved to the talk page. hmwith☮ 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had been following the debate on Asmahan and decided to contribute only when there was an RfC. As soon as I tried to voice my opinion, I was called a sock-puppet by Supreme Deliciousness and HelloAnnyong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan/Archive_2#Sockpuppetry_Allegations , just because my opinion was not in agreement with their agenda, even though I am an independent editor and I am not anyone’s puppet. Sock Puppetry Investigations have proven that SD and HA’s accusations were false.

SD and HA have continued to call me a puppet even after the SPI decisions, which I have found insulting - similar to calling an innocent man a thief without evidence, and after court proves otherwise. I have continued to contribute to certain articles after it became clear that Supreme Deliciousness had an agenda of making Egyptian articles look Syrian, see for example: Soad Hosny, Anwar Wagdi, Tamer Hosny, Farid al-Atrash, Omar Sharif, etc.

I am determined to protect Egyptian articles from SD's agenda. I do not have time to follow the articles on a continuous basis but will check from time to time. I disagree with Arab Cowboy's hot temper, and advice him to keep a cool head in the face of SD's forays into Egyptian articles.

Note: AC's edit wars involve numerous articles but almost exclusively involve Supreme Deliciousness concerning the emphasis of Egyptian or Syrian in biographies. Examples include:

• blocked for edit warring at Farid al-Atrash on May 26.
• warned for edit warring at Baba ghanoush on June 4.
• blocked for edit warring at Hala Gorani on June 16.
• warned for edit warring at Atrash on June 29.
• blocked for edit warring at Asmahan on July 3.
• Upon return from block is warned for disruptive edits at Asmahan on July 4.
• blocked and unblock declined for disruptive editing at ANI thread on July 13.
• blocked for disruptive edits including blanket reversions at Asmahan, Soad Hosny which he mislabeled as vandalism, Atrash which he mislabeled as vandalism, Anwar Wagdi which he mislabeled as copyvio on August 23.
• This recent "wikilawyer" response indicates Arab Cowboy takes little responsibility for edit warring and considers the blocks "biased" and/or trivial.

Some examples from edit wars include:

• removal of Syrian from Anwar Wagdi stating Your envy and jealousy of Egypt make you look really small.
• removal of Syrian from Soad Hosny.
• removal of Syrian from Hala Gorani.
• not of Syrian descent by any means! at Tamer Hosny.
• reversion against mediator opinion which emphasizes the word Egyptian at Asmahan.
• removal of Syria and emphasis on Egypt at Atrash.
• edit warring to emphasize Egyptian at Asmahan.

Note: SD's edit wars involve many articles and editors other than Arab Cowboy. Examples include:

• warned for edit warring at Farid al-Atrash on May 26.
• warned for edit warring at Farid al-Atrash on June 1
• warned for edit warring at Druze on June 7
• warned for anti-Israeli POV pushing at Hummus and Za'atar on June 11
• warned for racism at Talk:Arab citizens of Israel on June 16
• warned for anti-Israeli POV pushing warned for anti-Israeli POV pushing at Golan Heights on June 18
• warned for edit warring at Atrash on June 29
• blocked for edit warring at Asmahan on July 3
• warned for 3RR warned for 3RR at Quneitra Crossing and List of archaeoastronomical sites by country on August 7
• warned for removal of content at Za'atar on August 26
• warned for persistent contentious editing across multiple articles on August 26

Examples include:

• emphasizing remote Syrian background at Omar Sharif.
• removing Egyptian government propaganda at Anwar Wagdi.
• emphasizing "with a Syrian family background" to Soad Hosny.
• reverting text at Asmahan by cherry picking one mediator statement and ignoring another.

Examples include:

• SD stated that The days of Israeli domination of Arab articles are soon over. as a reason for edit warring on food articles.
• 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.
• The Israeli sections of the article must be removed... They have stolen our lands, now they steal our food comment at Talk:Za'atar.
• they stole our food... making americans believe its "israeli food" . Disgusting! comment at Talk:Za'atar.
• Its continued attempt's by Israelis/Israeli sympathizers to continue the culture theft of Arabs and fool the world believing hummus is Israeli comment at Talk:Hummus.
• Israel is a false nation that has to steal other peoples history, culture and food because it doesn't have any itself. comment at Talk:Hummus.
• Edit wars to remove Israel from food articles, for example at hummus and falafel.
• Politicizes Mount Hermon entry at list of ski resorts.
• Attempts here and here to include Gaza Strip in the Ghetto article.

Despite efforts and advice by mediators, administrators and editors, there does not appear any way that these two editors will become cooperative with one another. I agree with User:Al Ameer son's statement at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asmahan that it seems impossible now. The history of any article mentioned in the diffs will show persistent warring over minor details -- the kind of details from which other editors would find mutual understanding or simply back away. Both editor's talk pages and edit summaries show they bait each other. Both editors have a problem with POV pushing. In my opinion, a workable solution will require banning the editors from any interaction on their talk pages, limit their editing on any Egypt-Syria cross-over article, and admonishments on POV pushing.

Since I am mentioned in SD's response (that has been moved here), I am replying in hope of clarifying the situation: SD states "Nsaum75 was clearly POV pushing trying to make it look like Golan is part of Israel."([83]) My edit summary states: "While it is a disputed territory between Syria and Israel, the international community currently recognizes that the Golan Heights is under Israeli control." Control can be interpreted several ways, but since their military occupies the land area, then the area is under Israeli military control.

In regards to SD's statement "what I believe is my neutral opinions about Israel at talkpages", as well as comments made by CactusWriter - I have been concerned about SD's motives at a number of political and non-political articles that happen to mention Israel, after he made this addition to his userpage [84]. It was removed by Xeno([85]) per WP:SOAP, but the information presented on the page and in the userbox has made it very difficult to accept certain edits by SD as being done in Good Faith. Furthermore, when an admin closed an RfC regarding what terminology should be used to describe the Golan Heights, SD protested their actions partly because of the admin's religion. [86] --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assert that I am not engaged in any edit wars with any users other than Supreme Deliciousness. Supreme Deliciousness has been the initiator and instigator of all edit wars through his pushing of a Syrian personal agenda into Egyptian and other articles. Except for no more than a couple of instances, my position has been EXCLUSIVELY defensive in nature. Supreme Deliciousness's violation of Egyptian articles and bios (where he does not belong) is the cause of this whole situation. By contrast, Supreme Deliciousness has been in conflict with numerous other editors due to his pushing of his personal agenda.

Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, at least. For bios, admin Sancho has set the WP rule on claiming descent, addressing Supreme Deliciousness, "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 person." Yet, Supreme Deliciousness has ignored this rule and admin directive and has kept pushing his Syrian agenda into these bios.

Here, here, etc.

HelloAnnyong was brought in by Supreme Deliciousness. HelloAnnyong’s act was not a mediation by any means. HelloAnnyong agreed with and supported Supreme Deliciousness almost 100% of the time, example here, here, here. HelloAnnyong even supported Supreme Deliciousness when Supreme Deliciousness was misquoting the sources.

HelloAnnyong supported Supreme Deliciousness’s proposal to neutralize Asmahan’s nationality, just because they did not want to call her Egyptian, as she was. I proposed to refer to Asmahan as “Syrian-Egyptian”, although her Syrian nationality was never proven except by association to her father. This proposal was rejected by both Supreme Deliciousness and (therefore, of course) by HelloAnnyong, although after a lot more haggling and further mediation with Diaa Abdelmoneim, my proposal was found to be the most logical and was adopted in the lead of the article.

Diaa’s mediation effort collapsed because (1) Supreme Deliciousness had been sneaking edits past Diaa during a no-edit period. Those specific additions, here, here, here, and here, at least, by Supreme Deliciousness were made AFTER the 24-hour free edit periods dictated by Diaa, and (2) I had alerted Diaa to those sneak edits made by Supreme Deliciousness, but Diaa did not act on my alerts because he was busy with other articles. Subsequently, I took Diaa’s inaction as authorization to freely edit the article myself, and acted accordingly. Diaa has concurred that Supreme Deliciousness’s edits had been snuck past him here.

Ameer’s mediation effort was for the most part successful, but at its conclusion, Supreme Deliciousness filed a plagiarism report against the article, only reporting edits made by myself as CV violations, although his own edits had been equally so – he had been constantly nagging that as little as single words were not close enough to the sources, and as soon as they were close enough to his liking, he filed a plagiarism report. Admin Cactus reverted the whole article back to 11 July as a result, and all mediation efforts and our 3 months' work was destroyed]. And, after laborious efforts by myself to rebuild the article without CVs, Supreme Deliciousness claimed that the article was not close enough to the sources anymore, such as here, here, here, and here (please see his edit summaries) and he filed this request for arbitration. Cactus has told Supreme Deliciousness the following: “I find you equally culpable because of antagonizing POV-pushing edits. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, to just name a few, suggest you may have an an agenda. Persisting in constant reversions suggests intractability and antagonizing behavior. I haven't determined whether you are actually anti-Egyptian or just determined to add the word Syrian into every article whether its appropriate, but I do note that you seem to be in edit wars on most every article in which you are involved.”

Supreme Deliciousness requested the username “Supreme Allah”, which is clearly offensive to both Muslims and others. His request was refused, in spite of Supreme Deliciousness’s begging and pleading. However, in another act of deception, Supreme Deliciousness still snuck in his chosen, unapproved username “Supreme Allah” by using the format: Supreme Deliciouness|Supreme Allah, such as here.

Supreme Deliciousness has been edit warring with numerous other editors, and most lately myself. See for example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here,and here.

Here, and here, at least.

Supreme Deliciousness has taken his complaints to administrators who have responded by telling him that he was practicing the same behavior of which he has been complaining. Please see: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, etc.

Supreme Deliciousness has used my contributions page, undoing every change that I had made to Wikipedia, even on pages where he had previously shown no interest, and inviting other users to intensify the edit wars against me on all of those pages. Please see: here, and here, just to name a couple.

Here, here, and here, at least.

Here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Here, here, here, here,

Here, at least.

Here, here at least.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

I should like to draw attention to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Supreme_Deliciousness/Archive#Report_date_November_2_2009.2C_08:59_.28UTC.29 which demonstrates that:

1. The dispute between these editors is carrying on across Wikipedias. I do not know how much communication there is with similar committees on other Wikipedias, but Arbcom may which to raise this issue with ones in the French and Arabic projects.
2. Arab Cowboy's persistence in defending his creation of the report strikes me as tendentious editing in itself.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general observation, my perception is that Supreme Deliciousness has calmed down somewhat since first joining Wikipedia and that while there is still room for improvement, he is headed the right way.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks. {Write your assertion here}=== Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.