Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alberuni

Case Closed on 10 January 2005

Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in this case. Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

The parties
Complaint against User:Alberuni by users User:Yoshiah ap, User:Mirv, User:A2Kafir, User:Mustafaa]] and User:Lance6Wins

Statement of complaint
I request Arbirtration concerning User:Alberuni. Alberuni frequently violates Wikipedia policy, especially the rule against personal attacks, which is the primary reason for this request. This effects everyone, as it makes other users more aggitated and more likely to make personal attacks as well. Other methods of dispute resolution have failed, such as an RfC at Requests_for_comment/Alberuni. Other policies Alberuni consisently breaks are Civility, Assume good faith,and 3RR.

Examples of abusive comments that in edit summaries, from November 20 and 21.:


 * 1) "roach infestation deleted"
 * 2) "Zionist lies deleted"
 * 3) "Why don't you read the illiteracy you are blindly editing into Wikipedia, then I won't have to revert mindless Zionist trolls so much"
 * 4) "Zionist garbage taken to the curb"
 * 5) "oops, the Zionists made me do it"
 * 6) "hasbara is for liars and cheats"
 * 7) "Talk pages are useless for dealing with biased extremists"

Examples of reconciliation attempts:

--Josiah 16:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Talk:Yasser_Arafat/Archive_2
 * 2) User_talk:Alberuni
 * 3) User_talk:Alberuni
 * 4) User_talk:Alberuni
 * 5) User_talk:Alberuni
 * 6) Talk:Yasser_Arafat

Sadly, I must second this request for arbitration. Alberuni has made quality edits and has represented a viewpoint which is scarce in the English Wikipedia, but unfortunately s/he has mixed this with unrelenting revert wars and numerous personal attacks against other contributors.

I am quite sympathetic to Alberuni's perspective and I think s/he is capable of representing it fairly, but I also think that his/her often hostile and aggressive style is counterproductive. It causes article discussions in which s/he is involved to degenerate into morasses of personal attacks, reminders to stop those personal attacks, and arguments over whose behavior is worse, thus destroying what should be the focus of talk pages: discussing how to improve the article. Since unofficial efforts have not been effective, I think that an official parole on personal attacks would help shape his or her editing into something more productive. Yoshiah ap has provided some evidence above; more follows.


 * Talk:Dore Gold:
 * Please try not to be a dull-witted troll. I have explained it to you in simple language that even you can understand.
 * There are too many of us who believe in Wikipedia:NPOV to allow you and your Zionist gang to conduct your insidious manipulative effort at inflicting systematic Zionist bias on Wikipedia.
 * All you do is insert pro-Israeli POV into every article you touch all day and night. You are the epitome of POV. You are so disingenuous, it boggles the mind that you can stand to live ith yourself.
 * Now, surely even a dense troll can see the connection.
 * Talk:Jihad
 * These encyclopedia articles need to be NPOV, not the Franklin Graham hate-speech POV version that you are pushing.
 * The most recent attempt at undocumented POV editing by the hatemonger Pename.
 * '''Talk:NGO Monitor
 * You are in denial for some inexplicable reason. Zionist bias again?
 * When the content of the article is warped by a fanatic Zionist, it is difficult to avoid recognizing the pathetic narrow-mided bias of that individual.
 * Zionist vandalism is rife, needs more reverting.
 * Talk:Propaganda
 * Your extremist Zionist POV is getting in the way of Wikipedia yet again Jayjg.

There is more, much more, but that should be enough for now. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll add another: As you can see, s/he advocates death for those who disagree with her/him. S/he throws the word "Zionist" around as a catch-all epithet for anyone who disagrees with her/him. A2Kafir 06:15, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Talk: Munich massacre
 * These are Zionist schoolchildren. They've been raised to see the world only one way. It's like cult brainwashing. There's no use trying to communicate with them. Hence, the suicide bombers.

User:Mustafaa agrees that Alberuni needlessly incites people:


 * Look, Alberuni, I sympathise with your intentions, and I've had to fight ignorant pro-Zionist or anti-Muslim editors before. But the fact is that you simply don't engage your opponents most of the time, and add comments guaranteed to fan edit wars. I can understand you getting into edit wars with bigots like "Pename" or some others that I won't name just yet, but it is entirely possible to calmly and rationally discuss edits with people like Jayjg or Zora, even when their POV is diametrically opposed to yours or mine, and it is your own highly emotional editing methods that seem to be the main cause of those edit wars' continuation. - Mustafaa 03:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Copied from User Talk:Alberuni Lance6Wins 18:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes and Comments by Arbitrators regarding accepting this matter (5/0/0/0)

 * Reject, despite a request on his talk page User:Yoshiah ap has not supplied diff links to the specific edits he complains of. Fred Bauder 17:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept Fred Bauder 13:10, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. James F. (talk) 21:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept --the Epopt 01:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept The Cunctator 00:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Accept. &rarr;Raul654 19:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
1) Users must follow the three-revert rule; Articles may not be reverted more than three times in a 24 hours period except for simple vandalism.
 * Passed 9-0.

Courtesy
2) Users are expected to be courteous to other users. The prinicples of wikietiquette should followed.
 * Passed 9-0.

No personal attacks
3) Users are expected to avoid using personal attacks.


 * Passed 8-0.

Violations of the 3 revert rule
1) Alberuni has violated the 3 revert rule on several occasions. 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) Black September reverted five times in 24 hours: rv Zioprop rv anon vandal rv anon parade rv anon rv anon mute. Viriditas gives two other examples. When requested to follow the rule he responded rudely


 * Passed 8-0.

Discourtesy
2) Alberuni has been discourteous to other users, for example when requested that he comply with the 3 revert rule he responded with "get a life", when requested to review the no personal attacks policy, he responded with


 * Passed 8-0.

Personal attacks
3) Alberuni has made personal attacks on other users.


 * Passed 7-0.

Sock puppets
4) Just after this case was brought to arbitration, Alberuni created at least twelve sock puppets, some with names that were designed to provoke Jewish editors (NeverAgain, Wiesenthaler) or that were themselves personal attacks (Jewjg). These sock puppets were deliberately used to further the edit wars and make personal attacks.

Passed 9-0.

3RR violations
1) For numerous violations of the 3RR, Alberuni is banned for one month.


 * Passed 7-0.

Personal attacks
2) For numerous personal attacks, Alberuni is banned for a further one year.
 * Passed 7-2.

Personal attack parole
3) Alberuni is placed on standard personal attack parole indefinitely for one year after all bans that are imposed. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.
 * Passed 6-0.

Discussion
4) Alberuni is required to discuss all reverts on the relevant talk page, with the goal of finding mutually acceptable compromises.


 * Passed 9-0.

Good behaviour
5) If Alberuni can demonstrate good skill in discussion and behaviour relatively free of personal attacks, he may apply to the Arbcom to have the above restrictions reduced or lifted.


 * Passed 9-0.

Reversion violations
1) Should Alberuni revert an article without discussion, an administrator may block him for up to 24 hours.


 * Passed 9-0.