Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Alberuni

Alberuni continues to violate the policies
Here is his response, with clear violations of No personal attacks, Civility, and Assume good faith highlighted:

I feel as though User:Jayjg is on a witchhunt against me, pursuing me throughout Wikipedia, making unnecessary, innaccurate, and worst of all, extremely POV edits to many many articles on which I have labored with a very NPOV approach. On the Talk pages, I have expressed an anti-Zionist POV (for instance, I wrote that "Islamism is to Islam as Zionism is to Judaism" meaning that both are extremist ideologies of religious nationalism) and this has apparently infuriated Jayjg, among others, who are extremely ardent Zionists. To punish me for expressing opinions with which he disagrees, Jayjg has pursued an abusive approach of stalking my edits on Palestinian-related pages and quickly reverting or altering most of them at every opportunity, usually without justification or explanation. I believe he does this to harass me and drive me out of Wikipedia for reasons unrelated to the actual edits themselves. I have never had this experience with other Wikipedians on any other subject so I believe it is unusual and reflects a problem with Jayjg - not with my edits.

I admit that I mistakenly accused Jayjg of redirecting Occupied Palestinian Territories, when I later realized that action was taken by User:Neutrality just before Jayjg listed it for deletion. I regret that error. I also admit that Jayjg's constant needling harassment has caused me to "lose my cool" and resort to uncivil langauge. I regret that too. I tried to avoid conflict with Jayjg and ignore him but he continues to pursue me to ridiculous lengths. For instance he felt compelled to edit an article I created about a simple land measure Dunam - and his edit was even inaccurate! Jayjg mockingly edited out a descriptor of the Jabalia-based Palestinian human rights organization Al Mezan Center for Human Rights as non-partisan because, in his opinion, it focuses too much on Israeli atrocities and not enough on investigating Palestinian abuses! Jayjg at times appears to have difficulty recognizing that his own narrow opinions are not NPOV. At other times, Jayjg appears aware of the difference but chooses nevertheless to promote his opinion as fact. I am prepared to tone down my comments on Talk pages and edit summaries but I cannot countenance Jayjg's incessant abuse. I intend to continue my editing in as unbiased a fashion as possible. This doesn't seem to be a problem until an edit is made to a Mideast-related page at which point Jayjg descends and acts as if he owns the page. I fear that '''Wikipedia's objectivity in controversial areas is being compromised as pages become dominated by gangs of aggressive partisan ideologues and NPOV editors suffer harassment from individuals like Jayjg who relentlessly push their extremist POV, refusing to honestly discuss issues, compromise, or consider the damage done by their deep-seated biases. If Jayjg succeeds in his campaign to ultimately ban me from Wikipedia,''' then this destructive process will only accelerate.

Some final notes:
 * I listed Occupied Palestinian Territories for deletion before Neutrality turned it into a re-direct; I'm not sure why Alberuni still resists following the fairly brief edit history of that page.
 * I wrote that I regretted my mistake of accusing you of redirecting the page that I later realized that User:Neutrality redirected, not you. Whether you listed it for deletion a few minutes before or after User:Neutrality got to it hardly matters to my admission of error. I hope in advance you will accept my apology for this sincere error and will likewise admit your own errors when necessary. Alberuni 21:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course I do, and of course I will; thank you for your sincere apology. Jayjg 21:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Alberuni's original version of Dunam was both POV and incomplete. My edit was NPOV but also incomplete.  Neither was "inaccurate".  Alberuni's subsequent edit incorporated my information, and added his own original information in a NPOV manner, thus showing that he both agreed with my information, and realized his original was POV.


 * When you accuse me of writing something POV why don't you give an example so that the reader can see what you consider POV. In this case, it was reference to "Occupied Palestinian Territories". You insist that is a POV term but in fact it is the term used by the UN and is generally recognized as the correct term. It is only Israelis and their supporters whio insist on the term "Disputed Territories" and we previously have discussed the very POV hasbara reasons why Zionists insist on maintaining this semantic distinction. Alberuni 21:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is hardly the place to re-hash this, but suffice it to say you recognized that West Bank and Gaza Strip were both more specific and less POV, and made the changes yourself. Regardless, my version was not "inaccurate", everything I said in my version was accurate. Jayjg 21:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * RfC is not about getting people banned (as Alberuni has claimed more than once), but rather is a request for third party, neutral comment on a dispute. Alberuni refuses to acknowledge this.
 * I assumed that this process was an effort initiated by you to censor me by having me banned me from Wikipedia. Excuse me if I assumed incorrectly. Never having witnessed the process before, I may have misunderstood.Alberuni 21:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when one violates Assume good faith. RfC is about requesting community comment to build consensus. Jayjg 21:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni's response essentially boils down to "I shouldn't have done it, but Jayjg was so terrible that he made me do it"; hardly a recognition of any sort of responsibility for upholding Wikipedia rules. Jayjg 19:34, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have admitted my violations and agreed to tone down the rhetoric. I explained why I lost my cool in the first place even though my explanation wasn't necessary because most people were well aware of the provocations. I will maintain Wikipedia rules but I will not stand by mutely while those who accuse me continue to impose their biased POV on Wikipedia, ignoring the most primary rule of this project. Alberuni 21:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * And so you still justify your behaviour because of "the provocations". My edits too are because "I will not stand by mutely  while those who accuse me continue to impose their biased POV on Wikipedia, ignoring the most primary rule of this project."  And you still haven't explained your response to the RfC above, which is filled with violations of the very things I have objected to, namely No personal attacks, Civility, and Assume good faith. Jayjg 21:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It seems as though another user, HistoryBuffEr, has also appeared and begun posting "Totally Disputed" notices on various Israel-Palestine articles. (It caught my attention when he began doing this on the Holocaust revisionism examined article.  Going over the history of this dispute, I'm suspecting that HistoryBuffEr may actually be a sock puppet of Alberuni.  I may be wrong, but they do seem similar in both their intent and their criticism (attacks) on Jayg.  --Modemac 19:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Modemac, offhand, I don't think that the facts that HistoryBuffEr and Alberuni are both unmannered Palestinian POV-pushers makes them the same person. There are a lot of people like that. If you want to learn something about HistoryBuffEr, read the very top of Votes for deletion/Occupation of Palestine (historically the beginning fo the page), it describe his beginnings on Wikipedia. Gadykozma 23:47, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

More discussion

 * Please note that this matter is not between User:Alberuni and User:Jayjg, as Alberuni wants us to believe, and not about User:Jayjg's behavior. This is about Alberuni's abuse, insults, arrogance and, as we witness here, inability/unwillingness to acknowledge his ignorance. The statements such as "Islamism is to Islam as Zionism is to Judaism" or "The Jews living in Arab countries were Arabs... The Jews are not a nation...", (just a couple) are factually wrong, offensive and IMHO clearly disqualify him from editing any article on the subject before doing some learning. It is impossible to conduct a serious encyclopedic discussion with someone who doesn't know, doesn't want to know and simply denies the basics. I've already left a friendly note & reading suggestion on his talk page a few days ago. Nothing changed yet.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Those statements don't don't strike me as controversial. Some Jews hold the same opinions. You simply want him to disappear or tape his mouth shut because he disagrees with you. That's a violation of the NPOV principle. - Xed 10:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those Jews who consider there to be such a thing as an Arab Jew. As for Jews being a nation - yeah, we're a nation, pretty much, a nation with its own religion, from my POV. As for Islamism being to Islam what Zionism is to Judaism? I dunno. You sure it's what Zionism is to Judaism, and not what Rabbinic Judaism is to Judaism? Rickyrab 20:08, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * My statements are not factually wrong, we just have different opinions. I would like you to prove with facts, not just by stating your opinion, that any of my statements are factually wrong. If you can do so, I will correct myself. The one who is really ignorant is the one with the closed mind who thinks his opinions are facts. Alberuni 18:36, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A talk about nations belongs to the respective article(s), and here it would suffice to say that a nation is generally defined by its members, not outsiders. Beyond any doubt, Jewish national identity and consciousness goes back for millennia. What you are after becomes transparent after reading your comment : this is written as if Wikipedia endorses the POV that Israel has a right to exist. With an "opinion" as "open-minded" as this, you are in a pretty crappy company, my friend. Consider "Bigotry-finder rule 101": Take a situation, change the race, religion, sexual orientation, or other aspect of the players' identities, and see if the same results apply. Kenneth Stern  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 06:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I have found Alberuni a very valuable contributor. I've also found him repeatedly and unnecessarily abrasive. I'd like to see him be more civil, but I would hope that any resolution of this matter does not -- even temporarily -- remove him from active editing, including active editing of articles related to Jews and Judaism. I find some of his opinions appalling -- viz. "this is written as if Wikipedia endorses the POV that Israel has a right to exist" (I can't think of anywhere outside of articles on anarchism where Wikipedia fails to make the assumption that any generally recognized government "has a right to exist", so why single out of Israel in this respect?) -- but I could say the same of a lot of valuable contributors. Holding a few outrageous opinions is not unusual, and I believe that Alberuni is being singled out for his opinions, not his lack of civility. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:25, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Considering that even after promising to stop his abusive comments he has continued unabated, I don't think this is at all clear. Jayjg 17:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * See for instance Jayjg's continuing relentless promotion of an extremist Zionist POV in his edits of Ghadeer Jaber Mkheemar.


 * Thank you for the kind compliments Jmabel. I appreciate your insight into the goals of those who wish to censor me for my political opinions. Please read carefully the context of the article where my comment was extracted about Wikipedia endorsing "Israel's right to exist". I don't think my statements were outrageous. The sentence in the article was written poorly and with the usual Zionist propagandistic POV. "The Arab states rejected the partition plan and Israel's right to exist." I was pointing out the POV nature of that statement. It would be as if the article said "The Arab states rejected the partition plan and attempted to push the Jews into the sea." That would be another Zionist propaganda type statement. Do you ever wonder why we don't read, "The Israelis deny Palestine's right to exist and have militarily occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967."? The Zionist POV pushers on Wikipedia do not even allow the mention of "Israeli Occupied Palestinian Territory." They claim the term is POV! But they demand that Wikipedia refer to "Israel's right to exist" as if it is NPOV. This is why I say that pro-Israeli bias is rife in this encyclopedia and this is why the Zionist gangs are hounding me out of Wikipedia and deleting and reverting my NPOV edits. --Alberuni 18:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I now retract my compliments, due to this edit which amounts to Holocaust denial. Alberuni, this is exactly as despicable as people who say the Palestinians are "cockroaches" and who deny they were in Palestine before the Jews got there. I apologize to all for presuming good faith on Alberuni's part. If he will not apologize for this edit, I would be happy to see him banned. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:56, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't need compliments from a hypocrite. I am reporting sources of controversy just like Jayjg does when he inserts NGO Monitor and other pro-Israel hacks and IDF apologists "to balance" articles I created. He defends his POV pushing as NPOV. If you can swallow it when he dishes it out, you should have no complaints when the shoe is on the other foot. Unless you are just a hypocrite. You were right when you wrote, "I believe that Alberuni is being singled out for his opinions, not his lack of civility". Were my recent comments so uncivil that you changed your mind? No, you admit that you are offended by what you perceive to be my "opinions" (which they are not) and now you have joined the gang calling for censorship of views you wish to see suppressed. Hypocrite. --Alberuni 19:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Writing about Holocaust deniers isn't Holocaust denial. Don't see anything in what he wrote that states the Holocaust didn't happen. It just reports the opinions of others - Xed 19:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni, I really don't know what to make of you. For whatever it's worth, I don't think your intentions are bad, but "tit for tat" bad-faith edits are not something I can accept. You seem to be bothered that I didn't object to an edit of Jayjg's in an article I'd never even looked at. I think if you look at my history, I've questioned Zionist POV a lot more often than anti-Zionist POV. And maybe asking for an apology was too strong on my part (I withdraw that) but you really got my back up. And I totally deny the charge of hypocrisy. Or, for that matter censorship, except insofar as every edit that removes material, however inappropriate that material, is in some sense censorship. You know as well as I that the material you inserted into Jew was inappropriate. You were doing it to prove a point. You could have proved your point just as well by suggesting it as a hypothetical in a talk page but I have' to seriously question the judgment and maturity of someone who would instead make bad-faith edits to other articles on a retaliatory basis.


 * Again: when you think an article has problems, raise the issue, even recruit others to join you in doing so, etc. And if you think others are acting inappropriately, call them on it; if you think they are way out of line, start a request-for-comment on that person yourself. But don't go doing fucked-up things just to draw attention to the fact that you think other people are doing fucked-up things. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:55, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
Alberuni recently placed the following on Talk:Jew. I believe it is germane here.

Taking a lesson from the techniques used by Jayjg and colleagues "to add an NPOV balance" to Muhammad al-Durrah, Palestine Children's Relief Fund and Medical Aid for Palestinians articles, I will be adding an NPOV balance to this and other articles by including Robert Faurisson and Ernst Zündel's critiques of the veracity of claims about extermination camps. These don't reflect my POV on the subject but, like Jayjg, I feel it necessary to "just report who says what" in an effort to bring NPOV balance to these articles. --Alberuni 20:33, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can construe this several ways, but I hope this is just a childish fit of pique, intended as a "tit for tat". However, it is more like retaliating to a bee sting with a nuke. If Jayjg's edits are inappropriate -- and, quite arguably some of them are -- the matter should be fought out in the particular article, or you should make a complaint about Jayjg. However, responding to them by making inappropriate edits of your own to articles about a particular ethnic group is inexcusable. What is this, Alberuni, some sort of effort to retaliate against the Jewish people generally because you don't like what Jayjg writes? As I said, though, beyond that, this like retaliating to a bee sting with a nuke. Muhammad al-Durrah is an article on a topic sufficiently obscure that I'm willing to guess that its edtors constitute at least a third of the people who've ever looked at it. Jew might be one of the thousand or so most-viewed articles in Wikipedia, almost certainly the most-viewed article relating to Jews and Judaism. Yes, I think some of what is in Muhammad al-Durrah out of line, but I, for one, was unaware the article even existed before you mentioned it in the course of vandalizing Jew. If this was some sort of sick bid for attention, sort of like some punk kid parading around London with a swastika on his arm, well, you got it. This is not the way to engage problem. You could have dropped a note in any number of talk pages, including user talk pages, asking people who deal with related subject matter to have a look at the article. You could have raised the matter on the Village Pump, or Peer Review, or filed appropriate Requests for Comment on people you felt were out of line. But you didn't. You chose to propagate Holocaust-denying views to the page about the Jews. And from the remark above, I gather that you either don't understand how offensive that was or, what's worse, you don't care. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with your call to avoid "tit for tat" editing, but strongly disagree with your characterization of the quoted text and (presumed) intentions behind it.
 * There is nothing "nuclear" about mentioning opposing views, we do it every day here -- it is the essence of NPOV.
 * Furthermore, there is no reason to treat views of Jayjg and other Palestine/Occupation deniers as more honorable or respectable than views of Holocaust deniers. A denial of obvious crimes and responsibility is a denial obvious crimes and responsibility. HistoryBuffEr 23:49, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight. Holocaust denial by Nazis is parallel to Occupation denial by Zionists. I doubt that the Zionist partisans can see through their own hypocrisy. It is clear that that some of us perceive these issues comprehensively, from all sides, and we edit accordingly while the Zionists are purely robotic, narrow-minded partisans who can only see these issues and make edits from their own narrow POV. Let's all work together towards the goal of NPOV and reduce to zero the pervasive Zionist slant in Wikipedia articles. --Alberuni 03:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It was rude and insensitive to mention Holocaust deniers' views on Jew, but his edit, phrased in strict "reporting" terms, is nonetheless entirely consistent with Wikipedia NPOV policy - and the horror it's provoked does kind of prove his point, if his point was that denying other people's suffering (such as Muhammad al-Durrah's) can seriously offend them. However, now that he's made his point, I suggest he goes back to editing the thousands of pages suffering from pro-Zionist POV rather than wasting his time trying to get equal time for a POV he doesn't even espouse. - Mustafaa 00:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your suggestion. I would be happy to delete my "edits for balance" of providing the revisionist critique to Holocaust related sections of "Jew" and related articles if and when the Zionist partisans stop their "rude and insensitive" pro-Zionist edits designed to provide an Israeli POV to articles dealing with Israeli atrocities. If they feel they can delete information with which they disagree and add pro-Israeli material to Palestinian related articles over my objections and the objections of other editors, then they surely should accept similar tactics applied to "Jew" and related articles. Right? Unfortunately, we both know that they are unable to control their biased POV approach to editing and they will continue to act as hypocrites promoting their POV in all articles and attempting to censor any views they disagree with in all articles. I hope you will continue working towards a NPOV in all articles. --Alberuni 03:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni's edits are certainly not vandalism, and your characterization of Alberuni's edits as "holocaust denial" goes against No personal attacks and Civility not to mention your refusal to discuss the edits. If you don't believe the NPOV statements about people's views of the Holocaust belong in the Jew article, then you should resolve the issue like any other edit conflict. If you choose to view his edits as retaliation, so be it, but that's your interpretation. Alberuni has violated no Wikipedia policy so I don't see the relevance of this to the RFC. --style 01:18, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm glad some people get the point. --Alberuni 03:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Jmabel, please check the edit histories on the articles I mentioned. Jayjg relentlessly forces his edits on the articles without regard to complaints and counter-arguments by several editors voiced on the Talk pages. He follows my contributions carefully and then makes very POV edits to almost all the NPOV articles I create in order to add a pro-Israeli perspective. He seems to think that he has the right to force his POV into the articles and he couches his aggressive POV pushing as a neutral effort to introduce opposing "balance" by citing NGO Monitor, IDF investigations and other Israeli or Zionist sources. I am using the same tactic to add balance to articles dealing with other issues. If this forces you and others think about your hypocrisy in accepting Jayjg's relentless manipulation of Wikipedia then that's an added benefit. I was offended that you excuse the POV edits on Muhammad al-Durra with the excuse that his murder by Israeli soldiers is "sufficiently obscure". The murder of innocent Palestinian children by Israelis is equivalent to the murder of innocent Jewish children by Nazis. What appears to be a "bee sting" or "nuke" to you simply reflects your POV that finds neo-Nazi revisionism more offensive than Zionist revisionism. Both types of edits reflect a demented POV hidden behind an NPOV style. Wikipedia should strive to eliminate all POV and represent facts neutrally. It is very difficult with partisans pushing their POV but if they are not overcome, Wikipedia will never achieve true NPOV. --Alberuni 03:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alberuni continues his dirty campaign on Talk:Jew: ''Jewish capos collaborated with the Nazis as did American Zionists who saw the Holocaust as a great opportunity to steer European Jews to Palestine. Alberuni 14:19, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)'' -- First I thought it is ignorance, but by now it seems obvious to me that he has no intention to cease his divisive hatredfest. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 23:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a standard refrain from the Palestinian Authority. Alberuni is quoting people like Al-Hayat Al-Jadida and his Jewish conspiracy theories.  Sadly, Palestinian children are taught these lies in offical PA school textbooks, so by the time they are Alberuni's age, they believe it is a historical fact.  --Viriditas 11:39, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't blame your ignorance on my education. You have been raised on a soup of Zionist lies and like other ideologues, you think it is the truth and you blame others for not agreeing with your racist ideology. Educate yourself. I provide "Jewish" references to suit your bigoted taste: On Capos: On the good ship USS St. Louis:  "This sordid story and other sickening tales of connivance between American-Jewish assistance organizations and the U.S. Government in denying Jewish refugees access to the U.S., and thus delivering more grist to the mills of Hitler's Final Solution - are spelled out in great detail in a captivating book on the Holocaust: Henry L. Feingold's "Bearing Witness: How America and Its Jews Responded to the Holocaust" (Syracuse University Press)." -- Alberuni 06:04, 3 Nov 2004
 * How many Wikipedia policies did you just violate in that rant? --Viriditas 02:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Truth hurts, huh? --Alberuni 03:08, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Had our fun
I believe that as a tool for requesting community involvement in the dispute, this page is no longer useful. Currently it is just another site for bashing. I suggest it be closed and the matter passed to the next level, or not, according to what the parties feel about the situation. Gadykozma 03:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. IZAK 07:34, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am in accord with this proposal. --Viriditas 08:33, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jayjg 15:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)