From the manual of the ‘Radical Arab-Islamic Lobby’ on wikipedia, how it “works” to dominate with their misinformation the “free” encyclopedia

Among the aggressive ‘Radical Arab-Islamic Lobby’ on wikipedia:

Nableezy (Arab “Palestinian” in Chicago)

Malik_Shabazz (American Muslim)

Huldra (Palestinian-Arab in Europe)

FunkMonk (Lebanese Arab)

Tiamut (“Palestinian” Arab)

—

Methods of dominating misinformation:

• 1. Complaining on material they don’t like as “unrteliable sources,” if that doesn’t work…
• 2. Try and argue it’s a POV (point of view), if that doesn’t work…
• 3. Try and block that person, after editing it a few times among themselves (there  are 3 edits reserved per person, per 24 hours, you make the math. Thus,  they eagerly send out a “warning” for the person on repeated edits “edit-war”). By simply blocking that person, it saves time and energy too…
• 4. To try and “grab” their biased edit and immediately ask for a “protection” (locking) the page that no more edits are available for a while – that’s after/as their version is on of course!
• 5. If all that fails to try and accuse the user of “sock puppet”.

Whoever said that only the UN and Amnesty is hijacked by an Arab-Islamic lobby?

Whatadayaknow, Nableezy just filed, yet another sock puppet complaint against another person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kalamiyat  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drork ) all for daring to voice his opinion against dominating Palestinian Nableezy (POV) propaganda, will the censorhip hit Drork too? It depends how silly, gullible or bias the administrators are.

From experience by users that have emailed us (with different IPs, locations, cities,  etc.) we can vouch that when an administrator says he/she was “cheking user” to see if it is a sock puppet, that that is entirely NOT true, completely diferent people have been blocked due to Nableezy´s (way of pushing to censor critics of bigoted militant radical Islamic action and propaganda) obsession in his (rewarded) , method of charging users with “sock puppets” accusation.

Racist Arab in Kuwait, removes “Jews” from list of victims by racism of pan-Arab ideology

Kuwaiti IP 78.154.243.192 – (removed word “Jews”)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pan-Arabism&diff=prev&oldid=344052287

Pan Arabism page, which radical Arabists “object” to

The (almost full) pan Arabism version which bigoted Arabists object to [April 11, 2010 on wikipedia]:

https://wikibias.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/pan-arabism-wikipedia-april-2010.pdf

The talk page

https://wikibias.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/talk-panarabism-wikipedia-042010.pdf

Nableezy (Palestinian Arab) doesn’t like that it mentions the racism on all non-Arab groups, or on all not-Arab-enough ethnicities.

Victims of racism  (and sepremacy) of pan-Arabism include (past/present):

Copts, Kurds, Jews, Persians (Iranian), Berbers, Assyrians, Maronites, blacks (Africans),  Shia under pan-Arab leader Saddam, and others.

Nor does he “like” mentioning the roots of fascism in pan-Arabism especially in the 1930s.

Or mentioning the fact of pan-Arab historic totalitarianism, conflicts.

The way he plays around on the talk page is basically this,  first he dismisses all non-Arab groups’ (mentioned) sources as unreliable, then he tries to lie that it doesn’t mention pan-Arabism, when it fails he says that it only mentions once… or he tries to say that it’s  just an “opinion.” especially when it’s quoted from NYTimes, etc.

Wikipedia administrators failure to see beyond, when Arabist says “jump” – when they push to block editors of a different view by claimg they are “sock puppets”. example: (racist Arab Palestinian) Nableezy’s activities in just 4 weeks time

Wikipedia administrators failure to see beyond, when Arabist says “jump”

Pushing to block editors of a different view by claimg they are “sock puppets”.  (racist Arab Palestinian) Nableezy’s activities in just 4 weeks time

Well, maybe the fault is in the submitor? but not that he has any merit in his agenda-driven “claims.”

March 16 – April 16, 2010

Users, he tried (some, he succeeded in removal) to block are:

>1) Toothie3 2) Drork 3) Terminologitic (appears to be a Zionist, according to contrib.) 4) Clown_Correction 5) Rocalisi (appearst to be an Arab, without any criticism of Islam, according to contrib.) 6) NoCal100 7) Geenah 8] Beyruthi (appears to be a Lebanese Arab)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Toothie3&diff=prev&oldid=356089096

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations&diff=prev&oldid=356089256

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Drork&diff=prev&oldid=355969564

15:14, 7 April 2010 (diff | hist) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations ? (?Awaiting Clerk approval: +12) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations&diff=prev&oldid=354542047

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/NoCal100&diff=prev&oldid=354224567

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Toothie3&diff=prev&oldid=354145304

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Toothie3&diff=prev&oldid=353786287

06:11, 30 March 2010 Nableezy (talk | contribs) (385 bytes) (?Created page with ‘==prior accounts== If you wouldnt mind providing your answer to the following it would be appreciated. Have you ever used another account on Wikipedia to edit artic…’)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Clown_Correction&oldid=352902523

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Toothie3&diff=prev&oldid=351586771

21:13, 16 March 2010 (diff | hist) Nm Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toothie3 ? (?Created page with ‘{{subst:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Blank report template header}} <!– Please do not add a header here –> ======<span style=”font-size:150%”> Suspec…’) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Toothie3&oldid=350276661

title=User_talk:Geenahs&diff=prev&oldid=350276966
 
Nableezy’s IP address is kept here hidden, he’s an Arab Muslim Palestinian residing in Chicago.
He, himself also edits history of users he has pushed to be banned, as “checked” as sock.

—

What a user, recently blocked by an adminisdtrator [due to Nableezy‘s “complaints”] wrote (we hope that person “rocalisi” doesn’t mind that we copy here his words):

“I am blocked only for decrying racism by pan Arabism Needless to say that there was no base for blocking me, other than persistant nagging by (Palestinian) nableezy who only has a campaign to push his POV down throats of all. I have no clue who these people are, he tried to lump me with, including more names I saw on his recent contributions, my bad. His “evidences” because I insisted to be right on talk of pan-Arabism is senseless, it was he, who was persistant from my coming here to wikipedia with his “welcoming” message of “did you have a prior account?” which only invited me even more into the issue of pan Arabism’s bloody history and present. These two factors have led me to be more active on pan arabism, his posting on my user page with that strange question, and “sean.hoyland” asking me to respond on the discussion of pan Arabism, and if it wasn’t enough for his satisfaction, he asked me to respond more, so I did. How then, does my argument there constitute “proof” that I sock? or, am I not allowed to copy information by people that were blocked (apparantly) due to Nableezy’s actions?

His methods, as I told him are too transparent, to dominate his POV upon everybody else, to put on the defensive –by accusing of sock– all those that might have a different opinion. giving him having his way to dominate his dictating way, is a disservice to wikipedia, to academic freedom, to wikipedia users, history and truth. maybe, just maybe there’s some unbias side on wikipedia, funny, someone emailed me 2 days ago about the power of a lobby on wikipedia… regardless if I am unblocked or not, it does show the “objectivity” seen who are the people that were blocked from the talk page of pan-Arabism and who was not, it was all on one side, enough said. This “checked user” thing means little when the motivations prior to the action is clear and there’s no control on how, who’s checking what, upto what high ranked level smells the bias?

For me it’s enough that I am lumped with so many people by the one that has complained (nableezy), to see the falsehood.

Not only in relations to pan-Arabism Nableezy tried to pull this trick on in just the last few weeks alone (check his contributions, I counted about 11 or 12), God knows how many in the last years, it turns the tables -therefore- on the “accuser” not on other people. (note, this is not an “attack” on nableezy but to show the real background/motivation of this block), I don’t take intimidations by no one, I shall alway speak the truth, if I am blocked here I will still let people know here (somehow) the truth, I promise! it was 100% unjustified!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rocalisi&oldid=356935990