Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alberuni/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

Evidence presented by Viriditas[edit]

Sept 27[edit]

  • 01:22, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Alberuni engages in incivility and personally attacks Jayjg on Talk:Israel. " suffer severe biases and a conceited arrogance that you need to check at the door. You are not an objective arbiter of objectivity. Your brand of extremism is easily recognized. You are POV incarnate." [2]

Oct 12[edit]

  • 02:50, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Alberuni engages in incivility and personally attacks Jayjg on Talk:West Bank. "There is little point in discussing issues with a dishonest pro-Israeli propagandist."[3]

Oct 13[edit]

Oct 14[edit]

  • 01:03, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Alberuni personally attacks Jayjg on Al Mezan Center for Human Rights. "Jayjg you have not made your case, why do you persist in your petty edit war...You backtracked on your mocking claim...even though you persist in trying to neutralize their legitimacy simply because your Zionist POV is offended...when teh Nazis were oppressing the Jews, I'm sure there were complicit apologists like you your life so utterly meaningless that the best you can do is follow my Wikipedia activity to in oreder to take slim satisfaction in trying to annoy me with your reverts, deletes, and POV edits of my pages. Why don't you leave me alone, you annoying little Jayjgboy?" [5]
  • 01:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Alberuni personally attacks Jayjg on Talk:Palestine. "Your POV pushing is outrageous and reprehensible and you do this all the time, day in and day out like some traumatized Holocaust survivor....You refuse to discuss issues and just keep pushing your POV. You have no more authority than anyone else Jayjg. You need help Jayjg, serious mental help from a competent Jewish psychiatrist, like your father." [6]

Nov 11[edit]

Nov 19[edit]

Nov 20[edit]

Nov 21[edit]

  • 06:40, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dec 8[edit]

Dec 9[edit]

  • 11:34, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ta bu shi da yu blocked Alberuni with an expiry time of 24 hours (Violation of 3RR rule in Yasser Arafat, 24 hour block.) [37] (Can someone help me find this diff? It seems to have been lost in the archive move)

Dec 12[edit]

Evidence presented by MPerel[edit]

Dec 1[edit]

  • 22:08, Dec 1, 2004
    • Alberuni (under IP created account User:Jewjg for the purpose of attacking and harrassing Jayjg. Note language, intentions, and ethnic personal attack here in an obvious mockery of Jayjg's user page. Attack includes: "These POV warriors spend all day on Wikipedia arguing in the traditional ways that have made them losers for all their lives and their ancestors hated for millenia all over the world." That this is Alberuni's static IP is demonstrated here and is also confirmed by the fact that the IP's first 8 contributions were made earlier on the same day and in the same article as Alberuni's first post on Sep 15, 2004.

Dec 12[edit]

  • 05:10, Dec 12, 2004
  • 07:48, Dec 12, 2004
    • Alberuni further engaged in personal attack against Ta bu shi da yu and clearly expressed desire to be banned rather than willingness to make an effort to conform to Wikipedia policies: "What a weasel. Please go ahead and contribute your petty complaints to ban me so I don't bother wasting my time on a project populated by immature arrogant twerps, fascist Zionist bigots, Islamophobe hate-mongers, bunch of lameass bigots and losers. Why waste my time?" [40]

Evidence presented by Cool Hand Luke[edit]

Dec 9[edit]

  • 04:14, 9 Dec 2004
    • Responds to a compromise offer for disambiguation of Zionist revisionism by making an unrelated joke/insult at Jayjg's expense [41].

Dec 12[edit]

Evidence presented by Pename[edit]

11 Dec[edit]

  • 18:32, 11 Dec 2004
# (cur) (last) 20:58, 11 Dec 2004 Zora (rv -- deletion unjustified -- passage amply supported by facts)
# (cur) (last) 18:32, 11 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv false characterization of militant interpretation of Jihad as expansionist propagation of faith)
This a recent edit by Alberuni on the Wikipedia entry on Jihad, as shown in the Jihad article's edit history. It is a good example of why Alberuni should be blocked. As anyone who is learned in Islam knows, the shar'iah (Islamic law pertaining to all aspects of life) not only sanctions expansionist imperialist warfare but makes it a religious obligation of the Caliph, the head of the one Islamic state mandated by shar'iah. Specifically there is sanction and commandment for imperial war in the four madhabs (schools of Islamic law) of the Sunni sect of Islam (about 90% of the world's 1 billion Muslims are Sunni, and several Muslim nations currently officially delcare which of the four madhabs they adhere to). This 'one Islamic empire' is not only described by the Islamic legal theory but rather there is long history of Muslims applying this theory in the world. Examples include the Ottoman empire, and the vast empire of the Abbasid dynasty (a Muslim clan from Muhammad's own tribe); the Muslims once ruled the second largest empire in the history of mankind, under the boot of the totalitarian theocratic system of rule called the Caliphate by the shar'iah. It is a well documented fact (documented in the Qur'an itself, in fact) that the Islamic tradition has a long history of referring to the Jihad as an offensive war for the purpose of conquering non-Muslim peoples and propogating Islam, Islam here being both the utopian theocractic empire called the Caliphate by shar'iah, as well as the associated religious faith.
Alberuni is well aware of these facts. He has heard them, and seen them documented many times in the discussion page of the wikipedia entry on Jihad. There was a time when Alberuni used to debate his radically appologetic views of Jihad, but long ago he gave up on debating his edits of the Jihad article on the discussion page. Anyone who reads the discussion page on the Jihad entry will find a landmine of evidence against Alberuni. But even more damning is the edit history of the Jihad entry. In this most recent, Alberuni deleted an entire pargraph from the article simply because he refused to accepted the accepted facts about what Jihad is or at least was from about the year 630 AD (when Muhammad started his conquests) until 1924 (when the Caliphate was finally abolished from the world by Kemel Ataturk, and the Islamic empire became a thing of the past). This is not the first time that Alberuni has deleted this very same paragraph from the Jihad article, which states that "Jihad" is also used to refer to imperial war, or "offensive Jihad" as it is called by Islamists, as opposed to "defensive Jihad."

Alberuni's Edit History of the Jihad Entry[edit]

Alberuni has waged a relentless revert war on the Jihad entry, in an effort to distort the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article and to delete any facts about Jihad which do not promote his radical apologist view that the medieval Islamic laws of Jihad conform in every way to the modern international and humanitarian laws of secular government. No medieval or pre-medieval laws conform in every way to the modern international and humanitarian laws of secular government, especially not non-secular laws (for example, Deuteronomy 21:18-21 commands parents to stone disobedient children to death).
Allowing Alberuni to continue editing Wikipedia seriously harms the factual accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia articles, especially the Islam related articles which Alberuni spends most of his time editing, mostly deleting true facts from articles without even bothering to discuss his biased POV in the discussion page, as his above edit of the Jihad article shows).

Evidence presented by David Gerard[edit]

Sockpuppet use by Alberuni[edit]

It appears Alberuni has been using a large number of sockpuppets. User:Jamesday checked the database, and found strong technical evidence for all the following:

All socks have been blocked indefinitely (and the user pages marked to show their sockpuppet status) and I've blocked User:Alberuni for blatant sockpuppet abuse while we sort the mess out.

It should be noted that all the actions of any of the above usernames are also actions of Alberuni. - David Gerard 15:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Grunt[edit]

8 January 2005[edit]

The following is a verbatim transcript of an E-mail sent 15:02 8 January 2005 UTC to myself from Alberuni. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 17:02, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

You should note that my IP has been blocked for weeks by Jayjg so that he can gain an advantage in content disputes and so that I cannot represent myself in my ArbCom lynching that is ongoing. Since you seem to be one of the more reasonable ArbCom members, I am sending you my accumulated statements even though I really don't care about the outcome. There is no point in caring because the project has been thoroughly captured by vicious Zionist thugs who will not allow objective editing by me or anyone else.

Please post this in my RfA.

The injustice of being hounded and driven out of Wikipedia by sleazy Zionist thugs and Islamophobic hate-mongers is pathetic and more of a reflection on Wikipedia than on me.

The accusations against me are pretexts for censoring unpopular perspectives on Wikipedia. The system-gamers like Jayjg and Viriditas are adept at ganging up on editors who they want to exclude from editing and they are good at manipulating rules and selective application of rules to their advantage. Of course, these rules are never applied to them because the ArbCom is on their side, populated by several Zionist sympathizers who see nothing wrong with biased editors running objective editors out of the project so that their political opinions will predominate.

This request for arbitration is simply an attempt by the Zionists on Wikipedia to silence and censor an editor who opposes their extremely biased editing of Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Alberuni#Had_our_fun.

I contest the appropriateness of arbitration on the grounds that Yoshiah has not followed appropriate Wikipedia dispute resolution steps before resorting to Arbitration. “The Arbitration Committee is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort to be turned to when all else has failed. Other steps, including discussion between users and, where appropriate, mediation, should be tried first.” [51]

Yoshiah refuses to communicate and degenerated to the level of reverting all my edits without even bothering to supply an edit summary or any explanation in Talk pages. Yoshiah admits to having cut off communication with me.

No response to my requests fo dialogue with Yoshiah on her constant reversions: [52]

Evidence that dialogue and agreement are possible if Yoshiah would bother to engage. [53] Alright, then I have no quarrel with you. I carry both an 'both or none' position. If neither page is put in the propaganda category, then i have no problem. If both are, I have no problem, but I do have a problem if only one of them is.--Josiah 23:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that Yoshiah’s decision to seek Arbitration is simply part of the ongoing Zionist campaign in Wikipedia to promote a Zionist POV in Wikipedia as if it is acceptable and objective fact. The Zionist cabal works together to revert almost all my edits without consideration of the facts simply out of hostility towards me, to silence me and others who promote an objective interpretation of Middle East related issues and ultimately to harass me/us out of Wikipedia for expressing anti-fascist views that Yoshiah and other members of the Wikipedia Zionist cabal find offensive.

Furthermore, I consider Yoshiah and the other Zionists to be supreme hypocrites for accusing me of offenses that they knowingly commit:

[54] Alberuni, you have absolutely no groud to stand on when it comes to assuming good faith. You are known to be one of the most common violators of this rule.--Josiah 02:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


You know nothing about my view. I am absolutely opposed to Islamic Fundamentalists, and am a staunch Zionist. (If you don't believe me, ask User:HistoryBuffEr and User:Alberuni, 2 anti-semetic, anti-israel editors who frequently accuse me of being a "Zionist POV pusher" and other titless). Unlike you, however, I try to leave my emotions at the door. You would do well to do the same. Don't you dare accuse me of being some ignorant idiot. I've lost too many friends because of Islamic extremists for you to dare say that.--Josiah 02:58, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Recognition that her edits are inappropriate. [56] Could you take a look at Islamophobia. I've got to stay away from that page for a while, because the Islamphobes just caused a reaction from me that wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia.--Josiah 03:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Rudeness, accusations of slander. [57] Take a chill pill. In any event, it isn't wise to slander a moderator.--Josiah 22:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rudeness, drivel. [58] I strongly second this. After dealing with User:Alberuni for an extended period of time, I found myself beggining to utilize the sort of drivel that he has. I have since terminated any communication with him until he learns to speak courteously, so that I will not be affected by him.--Josiah 16:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[59] Revision as of 16:47, 24 Oct 2004 Yoshiah ap (Talk | contribs) you ought to wear them; your edit stinks

Sockpuppets are multiple accounts used for illegitimate purposes. Multiple accounts, in and of themselves, are legitimate Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple_accounts. I used multiple accounts to avoid the harassment and automatic reverts by the Zionist gang led by Jayjg. That gang automatically reverted all Alberuni edits, even the most reasonable ones or typo corrections, as if I was a vandal, simply because they disagree with my political opinions and in order to harass me. I used other accounts to be able to edit Wikipedia without having to engage with those abusive editors and as soon as they realized that I was the editor behind those accounts, they went in and reverted my edits. (See List of militant organizations, for example). There is nothing wrong with using multiple accounts to avoid harassment and abuse by vindictive and malicious editors. Arbitrators should note on reviewing the history of all the accounts that none were ever used to evade the 3RR, despite the many false accusations that these accounts were intended top evade the 3RR by several editors, admins, and at least two ArbCom members sitting in judgment on this case (Ambi and David Gerard). So much for any expectation of justice from this kangaroo court.

So why was Alberuni blocked for one week and why were my multiple other accounts permanently banned? Wikipedia policy is clear that there are only certain conditions where blocking users is appropriate:

  • Vandalism: N/A. Did I ever once engage in vandalism? No. I did not although my User page has been vandalized numerous times, I never once engaged in such activity on any page.
  • Excessive reverts: N/A. Only one time did I actually violate the three revert rule and I was blocked for 24 hours. On another occasion, I did not violate the rule of more than three reverts in 24 hours but because I came close enough that an overzealous editor felt justified to bend the rules against me for violating the spirit of the rule by reverting 4 times in 24.1 hours. I argue that this was improper because users cannot be expected to interpret the spirit of the rule as interpreted by others. The letter of the law is the law. The rest is subjective and unenforceable in any systematic way.
  • Bans: N/A. I have not been formally banned by Jimbo, ArbCom or Wikimedia Board of Trustees so this cannot apply.
  • Anonymous and open proxies: N/A. I use a static IP.
  • Disruption: Because this leaves room for discretion by sysops, I am sure this is the only one that could conceivably apply to my case. But the specific policies violated were never defined. On the IP Blocklist [[User:David Gerard} wrote that the multiple accounts were banned because they were “sockpuppets created to evade 3RR and personal attack policy” This is blatantly false because there is no evidence of 3RR violation by any account or combination of accounts. I sent an email to David Gerard telling him this but his droll response, typical of an unthinking and abusive bureaucrat, was simply, “We are very tolerant, but we aren't stupid. We have the logs. Don't bother.”

The disruption blocking policy continues “Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other users' signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits.” This does not apply because none of the multiple accounts engaged in any violations of Wikipedia policies. “Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently. However, blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of disruption from IP addresses nor against user accounts that make a mixture of disruptive and useful edits.” I believe that all of the multiple accounts I used have made useful edits so none of them should have been blocked permanently, not even Wiesenthaler whose useful contributions to List of ethnic slurs was even noted in unsolicited comments by User:Brownman40 on Talk:List of ethnic slurs.

  • Usernames: N/A. No usernames were used that were inappropriate. If in some admins opinion, one or more of the account usernames were inappropriate, they could block that username. “According to our username policy, inflammatory, deliberately confusing, and other inappropriate usernames are not allowed, and in certain circumstances, sysops may block accounts with such usernames.”
  • Bots: N/A
  • Personal attacks which place users in danger: N/A. No threats were made nor actions taken that exposed Wikipedia editors to any danger. “Blocks may be imposed in instances where threats have been made or actions performed (including actions outside the Wikipedia site) which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. In such a case a ban for a period of time may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why. See No personal attacks.

It’s clear that I have not violated any of the rules that would justify banning multiple accounts as sockpuppets, as if they had been misused. Furthermore, I would point out that the dishonest use of sockpuppets by abusive editors (the owners of User:Nasrallah User:Sheaner and User:ListenToThis, for instance) are not investigated by the technical means available only to developers like User:Jamesday. This amounts to selective use of technological means to level false accusations of sockpuppetry as a way to censor editors holding anti-Israeli political opinions. Until Jayjg, Viriditas, SlimVirgin, Jewbacca, MathKnight, and A2Kafir are subject to the same investigative measures to uncover their dishonest use of sockpuppets, if any, then the process remains skewed and biased.

Other complaints: “It is inappropriate to "bait" banned users, taking advantage of their ban to mock them. Being banned is stressful and unpleasant enough without people intentionally harassing an individual. Indeed, as a general principle, it is unwise to post comments to users who are banned, as they cannot easily reply without breaching their ban. Doing so might encourage them to breach the terms of their ban, which is inappropriate.” Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users

  • Apparently, User:Jayjg, who is very adept at manipulating Wikipedia’s rules against those he has designated as his enemies, doesn’t believe that Wikipedia rules actually ‘’apply’’ to him so he feels free to bait blocked editors. See his comments to User:RomperRoomReject a few hours after he had organized User:Jamesday and User:David Gerard to initiate an indefinite ban on the username. [60]

“As the sysops have now confirmed that you, and Wiesenthaler, and almost a dozen other userids are sockpuppets of User:Alberuni, and you have all been blocked as a result, your protestations ring mighty hollow. I note that the quote you placed on your RomperRoomReject page reads "I don't like people who lie" [61]. You must hate yourself, then. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)”

  • In the same vein, biased “Arbitrator” David Gerard slanders Alberuni on Wikipedia noticeboard,

[[[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Sockpuppet_template]] by writing:

“To be used in cases beyond reasonable doubt: Template:sockpuppet

Example usage: [[Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of {{{1}}}]]
"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of {{{1}}}" does not exist.
Please Use this link to create the category page
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)
- David Gerard 20:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)“.

By doing so, Gerard confuses multiple accounts for sockpuppets, ignores my emailed objections to him about the slander, engages in a personal attack, and violates the Wikipedia policy against baiting banned users, Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Dealings_with_banned_users.

  • User:SlimVirgin]] engages in personal attacks by accusing and slandering me to david Gerard saying, “David, "I know it when I see it" can be a useful rule of thumb. The Wiesenthal/Alberuni abuse wasn't a borderline case (of hate speech), but was clear-cut, deeply offensive, and aimed at a specific ethnic group.”
    I have discouraged sockpuppetry from all sides, though my primary focus has been the abusive sockpuppet army created by Alberuni. In my view this should have been everyone's primary focus, since these sockpuppets were created to violate Wikipedia's primary policy (which is Civility, not 3RR), and to undermine Wikipedia's fundamental collaborative and consensus building process. The other sockpuppets seemed to appear mostly in response to Alberuni's many sockpuppets (and in response to the as yet unclassified Goldberg family of sockpuppets), and I felt sure they would disappear when the "Alberuni and friends" sockpuppets went away. So far I appear to be correct. The illness was Alberuni's abuse, and that needed to be dealt with first, rather than reactions to it. Jayjg (Talk) 03:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) [62]

Clear violation of the policy “If you violate the three revert rule, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally.”

  • Jayjg’s personal attacks against me “inventive loathsomeness” for using Rembrandt’s “Portrait of a Young Jew” on User:NeverAgain User page are not punished by the biased admins and judges on the ArbCom. “Perennial” is a reference to the perennial beauty of classical art, not a reference to Hitler. I am no fan of Hitler’s, despite Jayjg’s goading, and I am not alone in this appreciation of the timeless beauty of Rembrandt’s art. In 1920, Erwin Panofsky remarked of this same painting, Rembrandt's “Portrait of a young Jew,” “Here we see expressed the timeless and unfathomable depth of a soul which, beyond the borders of the individual consciousness, has been subsumed into a consciousness of all.” [63] NeverAgain IS a Holocaust reference adopted by Palestinians and others to remind their oppressors that we will not accept genocide and oppression ever again, against any people, nor in any form. In his usual “everything but the kitchen sink” manner of accusation, Jayjg does accuse me of copyright violation. I contend that the image is in the public domain (circa 1666) and it is well-established in US copyright law and by the Berne requirement that there must be originality for there to be copyright. Furthermore, would Jayjg condemn a Jew as chillingly loathsome for using this image or the phrase NeverAgain? I think he would applaud it and support the editor as an ally. But for his chosen enemies, Jayjg’s relishes stirring the mob to hate. This biased and abusive behavior is reflected in Jayjg’s distorted and repugnant pro-Israeli POV pattern of editing, as well.

  • Perseverance

Thanks for helping bring Alberuni's reign of error to an end. Congratulations. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:00, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) [64]

  • “Willmcw, I have no objection to the page being unprotected. I think now that SLUR/Wiesenthal have been blocked, everyone currently editing this page is acting in good faith. Slim 03:40, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)” [65]

A2Kafir uses the RfA to accuse me of encouraging the murder of those who I disagree with in his usual dishonest and malicious strawman argumentation style.

MathKnight demands that I be banned for putting newspaper clips about Jews on User:Wiesenthaler User page.

All of the above was for your information only. I won’t be editing Wikipedia any longer because interacting with low-life manipulative Zionist sophists is nauseating so I really don’t care what decisions the self-important children on the ArbCom reach.

Wikipedia is infested with Zionists like Jayjg and Viriditas who intentionally drive out editors with whom they disagree. They are POV pushing partisan sleazeballs but they did teach me a great deal about the origins of antisemitism. I am glad to know just how vile they can be so that I will always be alert to their type. Wikipedia can go to hell.