Nonsense. I'd be gratified if I were commended for general patience and good faith, but this is unjustly phrased at the expense of User:His excellency, as if he were a child to need any particular "patience with". It was no conjuring trick on my part to notice the circumstances and the kind of pressure that provoked him into the "wikiharakiris" and other gestures of frustration. IMO cause and effect lie open and visible to anybody of good faith who has studied the sequence of events, noting especially the timing of the blocks in relation to the heated comments, and noting the withdrawal of such comments, and the harsh "ownership" climate at the Islam articles. His E is rather to be commended for resilience in his efforts to negotiate the barbed wire round those articles and in continuing to edit in circumstances that have driven off so many others. User:Zora comes to mind, and I've just added my own small-scale frustration at Bernard Lewis in my evidence section, as an unimportant but illustrative example. The arbcom needs to consider the toll such a climate takes on the temper of the pushed-out "outsider". I feel distinctly less pleasant for the experience myself. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
I see Fred Bauder has changed the wording of his proposed finding of fact and commendation, perhaps in response to my note above, to remove the overtones I thought it carried. Thank you, Fred, I appreciate that very much, and the compliment too. :-) Bishonen | talk 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC).
I'm really tired of this debating. I know I can't expect the arbitrators to do their own investigations into the backgrounds of all allegations. I must stress my evidences page is sorely incomplete. There'd be tons more if I had time to go through every edit they've made in the past 6 or so months. I don't have that kind of time. I simply don't have the time to take on the editing histories of 3 editors. If you dont think there's something wrong with Wikipedia telling its Muslim readership that their wives are in fact slaves. [4] or Criticism of Islam being the size of a book, then what can I say? Read Bernard Lewis' books...He doesn't condemn the Dhimmi phenomena, he merely reports on the historic phenomena. He relates the practice as being both oppressive by today's standards, AND as being relatively humane considering what was being practiced by Islam's contemporaries. When I introduce THAT aspect of Lewis' analysis, already documented and discussed on the talk page without anyone opposing it, Merzbow documents it as 'quote dumping' and includes it in his evidence of indictments against me. There is a critique of Robert Spencer that discusses his method of drafting anti-Islamic polemic- that being he selectively cherry-picks through sources to collect and polish those bits that present negative images to the readership. The intent is to create the image that Islam offers nothing of value. It's all beheadings and oppression. My interpretation of the Dhimmi article is that its aim is to suggest Islam is similar to Nazism. As for the 'lacking of scholarship', it has never been my contention that western scholarship should be balanced with eastern one. If the credibility of the scholar can be supported, whether or not he or she is an Arab or a Jew or an American becomes irrelvant. Bat Ye'or isn't a scholar! She doesn't even possess a bachelors degree. Muslim sources ARE excluded. Pecher's already involved in another conflict where he's trying to exclude a very popular biography, an award-winning one in fact, from mention in Battle of Mut'ah. [5] Itaqallah is forced now to open an RFC on that issue. [6]. Apparently unless a book has been reviewed by western scholars/critics, it isn't a book. WP:NPOV makes it clear that euro/western-centrism is not welcome, and that a broad perspective is essential. His Excellency... 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As for editors being alienated, being forced to abandon the project, the only real and solid example of such editors is Zora, who had stated that it's the Islam-bashers who've made her lose interest in the project. I'd made several statements expressing my desire to give this up too. I don't because I'm forced to remember how many other editors I'd been disappointed of because they chose to abandon the project rather than address the problem. Bishonen's statement on the Workshop shows she knows what kinds of pressures I'm talking about. Look at what BhaiSaab and Itaqallah have had to put up with. Ever since Timothy Usher's (and company) on WP:Islam fighting over those stupid rules telling Muslim to refrain from saying Salaam or expressing their religious sentiments on their talk pages, that Wikiproject has been almost deserted. His Excellency... 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I believe what I see? -- Aminz 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am very surprised by this proposed finding, in light of this statement of the nature of the dispute which Fred Bauder had proposed some time ago:
"This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Wikipedia articles which concern Islam are at issue."
Therefore, I'd not bothered to delve into and rebut the material presented by His excellency, except to the extent he'd baselessly - and falsely - ascribed dark motivations to my involvement in Wikipedia. I will, at some point, take a look to get an idea of what the proposing arbitrator might be thinking, and put forth a defense.
Suffice for now to say that maintaining a clean record is, and always has been, more important to me than any content dispute. Had I any inkling, or any warning, that my conduct was in any way in contravention of Wikipedia policy, I would certainly have modified it accordingly. Additionally, I've long since withdrawn (6/18) from any of the spaces which were once disputed. No formal sanction is warranted, or necessary.
I've sent an e-mailed to Tony Sidaway in the hopes that it will be made available to the Arbitration Committee. Timothy Usher 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm rather shocked to read this. I hesitate a bit to jump right in, as I'm not familiar with the details of this case, and as I have a very high regard for Bishonen, who seems to be in some way involved with this business. I'll just make two points:
I won't say any more on this issue, because I'm not familiar with the background of this particular case. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
DIFFS ??????? I do edit warring. Pecher does. H.E. does. Timothy has been always very hesitant to do it. -- Aminz 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators, According to my POV, most of the few editwars Timothy Usher has done were when he works on the same article as Pecher works on. He has not been the initiative on any side. -- Aminz 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators, I'd like to make some comments about the personal attacks made by "famous" academic scholars just to provide an idea that ("unfortunately") Timothy's most controversial comments are not too far from the norms and standards of comments made by famous scholars in academia. As I said there are differing views among academics ranging from Watt who believes Muhammad was inspired by God, and Margoliouth who believes Muhammad was a charlatan. Margoliouth is not shy to make personal attacks towards Muhammad. As you may know, Ali is a very famous companion of Muhammad. He is loved by all Muslims. Now:
This is how Henri Lammens writes about him:
Lammens describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable".
He
Madelung in his Succession provided a detailed critical analysis on these criticisms.
Now, on the other side of the spectrum we have:
Sir William Muir who writes: "Endowed with a clear intellect, warm in affection, and confiding in friendship, he was from the boyhood devoted heart and soul to the Prophet. Simple, quiet, and unambitious, when in after days he obtained the rule of half of the Moslem world, it was rather thrust upon him than sought."
Thomas Carlyle who writes: "noble-minded...full of affection and fiery daring. Something chivalrous in him; brave as a lion; yet with a grace, a truth and affection worthy of Christian knighthood"
And many others who have praised Ali. Please note how different the range of views are.
My suggestion is that
1. Wikipedia needs more precise regulations of how and to what extend editors have the right to use particular academic/unacademic POVs to condemn or praise a person.
2.Timothy Usher counselled to be more sympathetic with Muslim editors and understand their feelings.
3. (this is my personal suggestion) He counselled not to work on any article that Pecher is working on, because he loses his sense of justice in those cases to my mind.
-- Aminz 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should not ban scholars like "Henri Lammens" for their views. On the other hand, wikipedia should have precise policies helping editor know where and how they can express their views that may not be liked by others. -- Aminz 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You bring this "You know I dont believe Jesus is God" arguement repeatedly as if it's supposed to mean something. What you think Jesus is, is irrelevant. What you think of Muhammad is irrelevant. What's relevant is your insensitive commentary here, a FRACTION of which I documented on my evidences page. Your reverts of content to push a POV. I take strong offense to you telling Bless Sin she shouldn't call Muhammad a prophet, in her own commentaries. I take offense to you harassing Faisal over his user page. I take offense to you VANDALIZING WP:Islam and telling Muslims not to say Salaam, when several users made it crystal clear to you that having the project page state such a thing was deeply offensive.
[7] At the time I demonstrated ridiculously good faith and pretended I didn't think you were fully aware that such an order was offensive. Of all the wives that Muhammad had, you take particular interest in Aisha. Why? Ah, I see on the talk page- so you can discuss Muhammad being a 'child molestor' with other Muslims. Your defense of wanton hate speech aimed at offending Muslims. I don't care what you believe, I'm against what you DO, and Netscott and Zora and BhaiSaab can attest to the facts. I don't think you should be on Wikipedia. I think your polemics and that of those many editors like yourself are dangerous both to the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of any kind, and in terms of the message that polemic attempts to push on the readership. You should be banned permanently.
His Excellency...
23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a sub-page of my User talk to address the diffs Dmcdevit has presented as evidence of incivility: User talk:Timothy Usher/re proposed finding. I hope this is acceptably within protocol; if not, please let me know if there is a better place to post it. Timothy Usher 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, I don't understand your logic in thinking your conduct safe from arbcom criticism. Arbitration is the most momentous proceeding on Wikipedia, and you're an experienced editor; surely you read the few sentences of instruction on the pages before joining in. Your quotation "This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency"... etc isn't some kind of rule or general principle, it's a proposal, from one arbitrator, Fred Bauder. Nobody else has commented on it yet. The actual general principle of arbitration (which I don't doubt Fred subscribes to) is at the top of the Requests for arbitration/His excellency page: "All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute." You are listed as a party on that page, and you have edited it.
I didn't open this case, had no desire to participate in this case, had already withdrawn from the contested spaces, and only showed up because the attacks on my character continued, and continued to be intolerable. My recommendation regarding you was not aimed at harming you; I didn't mean to request any formal sanction, but only that you be asked not to unblock people who are continually attacking others, so that others aren't subject to the abuse to which I've been subjected. I've no desire to prosecute anyone, beyond whatever is necessary to stop the attacks. If that can happen without sanctions, great. Timothy Usher 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen wrote, "I see you proposed that I be counseled, and Tom Harrison commended" -
Did I?.
Timothy Usher
22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is quite peculiar that His Excellency seems to be the only one who is penalized by the arbCom based on the proposed decisions while many others who are NOT sanctioned constantly distorts information on wikipedia.-- Bonafide.hustla 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think arbCom case should penalized all forms of violation instead of trying to simplify the matter by only penalizing selective parties. ArbCom, as of now, fails to address the reason for His excellency's actions (personal attacks). Timothy Usher has been very uncivil and Pecher motives are highly questionable. I urge arbCom to penalized all those who are "part of the problem". Thanks-- Bonafide.hustla 05:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Simply because there are scholars like Edward Said who believe "I have not been able to discover any period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests." And this can be applied to the edits of almost any European or American editor in wikipedia. It is an academic POV. :) So, the only blame on H.E. is that he directed his criticisms towards Timothy and not his comments. -- Aminz 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In reponse Timothy can provide what critics of Edward Said said: "Said's academic critics argued that Said made no attempt to distinguish between the writings of poets such as Goethe (who never even travelled in the East), novelists such as Flaubert (who undertook a brief sojourn in Egypt), discredited mavericks such as Ernest Renan, and serious scholars such as Edward William Lane who were fluent in Arabic and produced work of considerable value: their common European origins and attitudes, according to Said, overrode such considerations" -- Aminz 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, do you think "passion, prejudice and political interests" are closer to "badly-researched" or "bigoted"? -- Aminz 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Said argues that "their common European origins and attitudes, according to Said, overrode" other considerations. So, as long as Timothy Usher or Merzbow and even H.E. are editing, I am sorry, their works are influenced by their cultural make up. Ha hahaha. But ME! No! ;) Ha ha ha ha! I love it. -- Aminz 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Spare us the condescending 'forgive them, they're western' rhetoric. These people are educated and informed.They know Islamic texts better than most Muslims do. They're not some midwestern trailor park dwellers who are blind to the world. If they've acted to push a bias, they're fully aware of it and are responsible. And Said never met Timothy Usher. His Excellency... 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the measures being considered against His excellency are both too strong and too weak. The problem isn't that he's here, or has a POV, but that he attacks people. The current proposed remedy allows him to return and make personal attacks, and to my best reading, provides for limited block periods, which the record shows he's been willing to undergo in exchange for being provided a forum for his attacks. At the same time, it bans him from editting articles, which isn't really necessary. I'm not saying most of his edits are good or bad, or that the POV he represents is reasonable, only that they don't and it doesn’t rise to the level of disciplinary action.
I propose:
In return for this,
In a nutshell, let's change the focus from punishment to prevention, and address only the most intolerable behavior. H.E., Merzbow, Pecher, Aminz, Tom harrison, Bishonen, what do you think? Timothy Usher 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Timothy, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Do you think the arbitrators will swallow the picture you paint of HE as an attack machine if only you present it as uncontested truth often enough? I doubt it. They have a fetish for evidence, examples, and diffs, and you've been starving them. Instead you've raised doubts that you know a personal attack when you see one, by your repeated demand that "all the personal attacks" should be removed from this arbitration—from the evidence! If you've ever given an example of what in the evidence it is that you consider "attacks", I've missed it (admittedly possible enough, so you may have, but it sure isn't what you normally do). I'm sorry, but arbitration is about criticizing other people, as harsh and unwiki as that may sound. "Your honor, make the witness shut up, he's saying I did bad things" won't work. If I were you I would seriously be looking to substantiate what I say, instead of this proposal based on the assumption that everybody already agrees with your version. At present you have the worst possible compromise between submitting evidence and not submitting evidence: you have an evidence section, but a worthless one. (So does Pecher, with his handful of antique diffs from when Amibidrohi was a clueless newb.)
Also, arbitration reviews everyone's conduct, so your proposal seems a little limited. Do you have any suggestion for doing something about Pecher's discourtesy [22], your own incivility and edit warring regarding Islam articles, and harassment of HE (I'm quoting a proposed finding by Dmcdevit) or harassment and disrespect towards me [23]? Have you formed an opinion about this recent unprovoked double-barrelled attack by Merzbow? For instance: Pecher has never spoken to me in a civil tone of ordinary human exchange—or, in a civil tone, period. I don't take it personally, I notice he talks like that to a lot of people, but do you think that's a good thing for the encyclopedia? I presume you see what Aminz says above about distress and pain. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
Can you outline in more detail which users you think reside in the 'gang' that you think is 'patrolling' the Islam pages? Never mind, you already did. Please stop playing innocent by making hit-and-run attacks of your own like this and then crying 'attack' when your assumption of faith in the editors of these articles is rightly questioned. - Merzbow 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I would not want to expand this case to look at Pecher's editing on Bernard Lewis. I can imagine there are problems, but looking at the article as it is now it seems fine. If he continues in the same vein in the future, perhaps the question will have to be revisited. I am hopeful however, that Pecher can read between the lines and realize that if he is not courteously working toward neutral point of view that the may end up banned from editing in this area. Fred Bauder 10:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred's made it clear he's going to ignore all allegations made in this case except those made against me. I've repeatedly informed him that ethnic differences and representations are not factors in this case. Unlike Publicola, I don't see this dispute as being one between "Muslim and Jew", but rather honest editors and those who wish to promote activist propaganda. Existing WP:policy is sufficient to guarantee neutrality in the articles in question, or at least they would have been if administrators here took any interest in maintaining such policies. Fred's accusation is that my 'overt anti-semitism' makes it impossible for him to hold the other parties responsible for anything. That's ridiculous. Even the parties involved didn't dream up that excuse for overlooking their actions. My 'anti-semitism' amounts to two comments, both on my talk pages, not directed to anyone in particular. The first was the use of the phrase "those Jews". The second, a more reckless one, lasted for all of 1 minute as I self-reverted almost immediately. Generally Wikipedia doesn't punish editors who self-revert their offenses. In contrast, my evidences page points to far many more occasions of attacks against the Muslim community here. My entire arguement has been that these Wikipedia articles are being used to push anti-Islamic activist views and propaganda. I've given the example of Robert Spencer's website forwarding its readers to Wikipedia articles. Timothy Usher has clearly attacked several users, such as IbrahimFaisal and BlessSin using their religions as a soft spot. Fred's expressed his intention to ignore all of this.On talk pages he admit to finding Pecher's works biased, but chooses not to reflect that finding on the Proposed Findings page. What he's suggesting is that he takes 1 comment on Jews (ie the use of the phrase "those Jews") to be more serious than the scores of occasions where clear and obvious anti-Muslim hatred was shown. This in itself is an extreme bias on his part. He is suggesting that The Jewish Wikipedian warrants far greater protections for slights against him than the Muslim Wikipedian does, even when the attacks against the Muslim community here are far greater in number, far more derogatory, and systemic. In fact, he's suggesting the attacks against Muslims here are utterly negligible. That's racist. His Excellency... 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
On the ban suggested against me, relative to the affect Timothy Usher's attacks and Pecher's editing, my comments have had little, if any, effect on the Wikipedia community. Both were on my talk page, directed to no particular user. Both were made in particularly heated moments. The latter was deleted immediately after my posting it, and therefore affected nobody. You only know of it because Hypnosadist went fishing into my edit history. Up until now, I did not express any disagreement with the penalty regardless, as I feel expressions of bigotry shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of circumstance. It's pretty clear now that the standards aren't being applied fairly here. Comments against Jews gets you the axe. Open and obvious attacks against Muslim editors and twisting of articles to push propaganda? That's too insignificant to warrant even a response. This is absurd. His Excellency... 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I been repeating this several times, while His excellency's action is not perfectly optimal, a mere probation has little effect on Percher and others. They need to be blocked for possibly shorter period of time, but again a probation=no punishment. Enforcing admins will have a hard time to figure out who's on probation, who's not. POV pushing/distorting info on articles have far more damages than comments made on talkpage. Now His excellency has established that his insult is not directly at anyone, banning him for PA seems absurd, since userpage and talkpage is usually given more leeway. (examples of racism on userpage and talkpages include admin User:Jiang and User talk:Jiang, attacking Taiwanese people, and my own userpage, countering Jiang's attack by attacking Chinese people). Those expressions usually do not violate any policy and users with such userpage/talkpages most likely goes unblocked. Individuals (except His excellency) need to be single out in order to maintain the integrity of arbCom (which is the last dispute resolution process) as well as avoiding being one-sided against His excellency.-- Bonafide.hustla 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at this fine new section titled "How Muhammad had such a great and significant achievement?" [31]. Sorry, that's a mockery of NPOV. Pecher Talk 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is the view of Bernard Lewis, Watt, D. S. Margoliouth. "great and significant" is what Lewis exactly says. Michael H. Hart in his book The 100 claims Muhammad was the most influential person in history. Please read what I've added. ---- Aminz 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm out. When I joined Wikipedia, I hoped it would be a cooperative forum of reasonable, policy-abiding people, but these edits and the ones below, and many others like them, beggar belief. They make a mockery of all Wikipedia policies combined and of each of them separately. Most importantly, it's pointless to discuss anything with people who make these sorts of edits; I've tried and failed to extract anything even remotely resembling reasonable arguments from them. I've dealt with this nonsense too much, and I'm fed up. Pecher Talk 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This edit [32] has four components:
This is a very typical interchange on Islam-related articles. Also typical is the fact that H.E does not bother to make a showing on the talk page. Timothy Usher 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Pecher has been self-nominated for deletion. The occasion? [35]
It is entirely plain that H.E.’s pretenses of high-minded opposition to bigotry and discrimination were nothing but schtick carefully crafted and calculated to manipulate the sensibilities of certain administrators and the Arbitration Committee.
And it’s worked. You thought he might have had a point. Well, he does have a point. There it is, the same point he had when Tom harrison rightly indefed him to begin with, the same point he had when Bishonen thought he had a good one.
You can say, “well, we’re about to ban him.” But you’re not really about to ban him. You can’t ban him, because he can, and likely will, return as a sockpuppet (as he may have already), which will then, presumably, be allowed the same torturous and time-consuming benefit of the doubt you’ve allowed his last username.
Meanwhile, serious-minded, established and law-abiding editors are driven from Wikipedia. Pecher is indefinitely banning himself. Since 18 June, I’d indefinitely banned myself from Islam-related articles because it’s become clear, despite the deceptively unequivocal language of WP:NPA, that to participate is to invite personal attack and character assassination from pseudonymous users with nothing whatsover to lose. That’s two indefs for real people/established editors against “His excellency’s” - a throwaway account created only to attack, as Tom harrison observed early on - four months.
Tony Sidaway wrote, “The Arbitration Committee will stop all attacks.” [36] but that is manifestly untrue. You didn’t stop this, did you? For starters.
You knew that “His excellency” hates and attacks Jews, as per evidence. You knew that “His excellency” has long since adopted a modus operandi of harassing other editors generally, as per evidence, and block log(s). You knew that “His excellency” is more than willing to accept blocks in exchange for making attacks, as was made clear from his very first actions in these proceedings onward.
Yet you’ve indulged him. In the name of procedure, and in the name of non-discrimination (!) you’ve consciously, wilfully and advisedly indulged him.
This isn’t “His Excellency’s” diff - it’s Bishonen’s diff, it’s the Arbitration Committee’s diff, and it’s Wikipedia’s diff. Own it; you bought it; it’s yours.
Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind. Timothy Usher 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I kind of feel bad for H.E. Everyone definitely has his/her own POV, even admins do, but the thing to keep in mind is as long as they don't reflect their POV in their edits for articles, POV is okay. We are human, we are bound of have POV. You guys are pushing H.E. to a corner. H.E.'s behaviors are not optimal but his emotional outburst is still quite understandable.-- Bonafide.hustla 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Congrats Arbcom another editor leaves as you do nothing to protect people Hypnosadist 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific? Who left? If an editor is not making productive edits, it is not a loss to the community.--
Bonafide.hustla
22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. I'd be gratified if I were commended for general patience and good faith, but this is unjustly phrased at the expense of User:His excellency, as if he were a child to need any particular "patience with". It was no conjuring trick on my part to notice the circumstances and the kind of pressure that provoked him into the "wikiharakiris" and other gestures of frustration. IMO cause and effect lie open and visible to anybody of good faith who has studied the sequence of events, noting especially the timing of the blocks in relation to the heated comments, and noting the withdrawal of such comments, and the harsh "ownership" climate at the Islam articles. His E is rather to be commended for resilience in his efforts to negotiate the barbed wire round those articles and in continuing to edit in circumstances that have driven off so many others. User:Zora comes to mind, and I've just added my own small-scale frustration at Bernard Lewis in my evidence section, as an unimportant but illustrative example. The arbcom needs to consider the toll such a climate takes on the temper of the pushed-out "outsider". I feel distinctly less pleasant for the experience myself. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC).
I see Fred Bauder has changed the wording of his proposed finding of fact and commendation, perhaps in response to my note above, to remove the overtones I thought it carried. Thank you, Fred, I appreciate that very much, and the compliment too. :-) Bishonen | talk 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC).
I'm really tired of this debating. I know I can't expect the arbitrators to do their own investigations into the backgrounds of all allegations. I must stress my evidences page is sorely incomplete. There'd be tons more if I had time to go through every edit they've made in the past 6 or so months. I don't have that kind of time. I simply don't have the time to take on the editing histories of 3 editors. If you dont think there's something wrong with Wikipedia telling its Muslim readership that their wives are in fact slaves. [4] or Criticism of Islam being the size of a book, then what can I say? Read Bernard Lewis' books...He doesn't condemn the Dhimmi phenomena, he merely reports on the historic phenomena. He relates the practice as being both oppressive by today's standards, AND as being relatively humane considering what was being practiced by Islam's contemporaries. When I introduce THAT aspect of Lewis' analysis, already documented and discussed on the talk page without anyone opposing it, Merzbow documents it as 'quote dumping' and includes it in his evidence of indictments against me. There is a critique of Robert Spencer that discusses his method of drafting anti-Islamic polemic- that being he selectively cherry-picks through sources to collect and polish those bits that present negative images to the readership. The intent is to create the image that Islam offers nothing of value. It's all beheadings and oppression. My interpretation of the Dhimmi article is that its aim is to suggest Islam is similar to Nazism. As for the 'lacking of scholarship', it has never been my contention that western scholarship should be balanced with eastern one. If the credibility of the scholar can be supported, whether or not he or she is an Arab or a Jew or an American becomes irrelvant. Bat Ye'or isn't a scholar! She doesn't even possess a bachelors degree. Muslim sources ARE excluded. Pecher's already involved in another conflict where he's trying to exclude a very popular biography, an award-winning one in fact, from mention in Battle of Mut'ah. [5] Itaqallah is forced now to open an RFC on that issue. [6]. Apparently unless a book has been reviewed by western scholars/critics, it isn't a book. WP:NPOV makes it clear that euro/western-centrism is not welcome, and that a broad perspective is essential. His Excellency... 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As for editors being alienated, being forced to abandon the project, the only real and solid example of such editors is Zora, who had stated that it's the Islam-bashers who've made her lose interest in the project. I'd made several statements expressing my desire to give this up too. I don't because I'm forced to remember how many other editors I'd been disappointed of because they chose to abandon the project rather than address the problem. Bishonen's statement on the Workshop shows she knows what kinds of pressures I'm talking about. Look at what BhaiSaab and Itaqallah have had to put up with. Ever since Timothy Usher's (and company) on WP:Islam fighting over those stupid rules telling Muslim to refrain from saying Salaam or expressing their religious sentiments on their talk pages, that Wikiproject has been almost deserted. His Excellency... 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I believe what I see? -- Aminz 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I am very surprised by this proposed finding, in light of this statement of the nature of the dispute which Fred Bauder had proposed some time ago:
"This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Wikipedia articles which concern Islam are at issue."
Therefore, I'd not bothered to delve into and rebut the material presented by His excellency, except to the extent he'd baselessly - and falsely - ascribed dark motivations to my involvement in Wikipedia. I will, at some point, take a look to get an idea of what the proposing arbitrator might be thinking, and put forth a defense.
Suffice for now to say that maintaining a clean record is, and always has been, more important to me than any content dispute. Had I any inkling, or any warning, that my conduct was in any way in contravention of Wikipedia policy, I would certainly have modified it accordingly. Additionally, I've long since withdrawn (6/18) from any of the spaces which were once disputed. No formal sanction is warranted, or necessary.
I've sent an e-mailed to Tony Sidaway in the hopes that it will be made available to the Arbitration Committee. Timothy Usher 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm rather shocked to read this. I hesitate a bit to jump right in, as I'm not familiar with the details of this case, and as I have a very high regard for Bishonen, who seems to be in some way involved with this business. I'll just make two points:
I won't say any more on this issue, because I'm not familiar with the background of this particular case. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
DIFFS ??????? I do edit warring. Pecher does. H.E. does. Timothy has been always very hesitant to do it. -- Aminz 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators, According to my POV, most of the few editwars Timothy Usher has done were when he works on the same article as Pecher works on. He has not been the initiative on any side. -- Aminz 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Arbitrators, I'd like to make some comments about the personal attacks made by "famous" academic scholars just to provide an idea that ("unfortunately") Timothy's most controversial comments are not too far from the norms and standards of comments made by famous scholars in academia. As I said there are differing views among academics ranging from Watt who believes Muhammad was inspired by God, and Margoliouth who believes Muhammad was a charlatan. Margoliouth is not shy to make personal attacks towards Muhammad. As you may know, Ali is a very famous companion of Muhammad. He is loved by all Muslims. Now:
This is how Henri Lammens writes about him:
Lammens describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable".
He
Madelung in his Succession provided a detailed critical analysis on these criticisms.
Now, on the other side of the spectrum we have:
Sir William Muir who writes: "Endowed with a clear intellect, warm in affection, and confiding in friendship, he was from the boyhood devoted heart and soul to the Prophet. Simple, quiet, and unambitious, when in after days he obtained the rule of half of the Moslem world, it was rather thrust upon him than sought."
Thomas Carlyle who writes: "noble-minded...full of affection and fiery daring. Something chivalrous in him; brave as a lion; yet with a grace, a truth and affection worthy of Christian knighthood"
And many others who have praised Ali. Please note how different the range of views are.
My suggestion is that
1. Wikipedia needs more precise regulations of how and to what extend editors have the right to use particular academic/unacademic POVs to condemn or praise a person.
2.Timothy Usher counselled to be more sympathetic with Muslim editors and understand their feelings.
3. (this is my personal suggestion) He counselled not to work on any article that Pecher is working on, because he loses his sense of justice in those cases to my mind.
-- Aminz 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think wikipedia should not ban scholars like "Henri Lammens" for their views. On the other hand, wikipedia should have precise policies helping editor know where and how they can express their views that may not be liked by others. -- Aminz 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You bring this "You know I dont believe Jesus is God" arguement repeatedly as if it's supposed to mean something. What you think Jesus is, is irrelevant. What you think of Muhammad is irrelevant. What's relevant is your insensitive commentary here, a FRACTION of which I documented on my evidences page. Your reverts of content to push a POV. I take strong offense to you telling Bless Sin she shouldn't call Muhammad a prophet, in her own commentaries. I take offense to you harassing Faisal over his user page. I take offense to you VANDALIZING WP:Islam and telling Muslims not to say Salaam, when several users made it crystal clear to you that having the project page state such a thing was deeply offensive.
[7] At the time I demonstrated ridiculously good faith and pretended I didn't think you were fully aware that such an order was offensive. Of all the wives that Muhammad had, you take particular interest in Aisha. Why? Ah, I see on the talk page- so you can discuss Muhammad being a 'child molestor' with other Muslims. Your defense of wanton hate speech aimed at offending Muslims. I don't care what you believe, I'm against what you DO, and Netscott and Zora and BhaiSaab can attest to the facts. I don't think you should be on Wikipedia. I think your polemics and that of those many editors like yourself are dangerous both to the credibility of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of any kind, and in terms of the message that polemic attempts to push on the readership. You should be banned permanently.
His Excellency...
23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created a sub-page of my User talk to address the diffs Dmcdevit has presented as evidence of incivility: User talk:Timothy Usher/re proposed finding. I hope this is acceptably within protocol; if not, please let me know if there is a better place to post it. Timothy Usher 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Timothy Usher, I don't understand your logic in thinking your conduct safe from arbcom criticism. Arbitration is the most momentous proceeding on Wikipedia, and you're an experienced editor; surely you read the few sentences of instruction on the pages before joining in. Your quotation "This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency"... etc isn't some kind of rule or general principle, it's a proposal, from one arbitrator, Fred Bauder. Nobody else has commented on it yet. The actual general principle of arbitration (which I don't doubt Fred subscribes to) is at the top of the Requests for arbitration/His excellency page: "All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute." You are listed as a party on that page, and you have edited it.
I didn't open this case, had no desire to participate in this case, had already withdrawn from the contested spaces, and only showed up because the attacks on my character continued, and continued to be intolerable. My recommendation regarding you was not aimed at harming you; I didn't mean to request any formal sanction, but only that you be asked not to unblock people who are continually attacking others, so that others aren't subject to the abuse to which I've been subjected. I've no desire to prosecute anyone, beyond whatever is necessary to stop the attacks. If that can happen without sanctions, great. Timothy Usher 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Bishonen wrote, "I see you proposed that I be counseled, and Tom Harrison commended" -
Did I?.
Timothy Usher
22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
It is quite peculiar that His Excellency seems to be the only one who is penalized by the arbCom based on the proposed decisions while many others who are NOT sanctioned constantly distorts information on wikipedia.-- Bonafide.hustla 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think arbCom case should penalized all forms of violation instead of trying to simplify the matter by only penalizing selective parties. ArbCom, as of now, fails to address the reason for His excellency's actions (personal attacks). Timothy Usher has been very uncivil and Pecher motives are highly questionable. I urge arbCom to penalized all those who are "part of the problem". Thanks-- Bonafide.hustla 05:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Simply because there are scholars like Edward Said who believe "I have not been able to discover any period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests." And this can be applied to the edits of almost any European or American editor in wikipedia. It is an academic POV. :) So, the only blame on H.E. is that he directed his criticisms towards Timothy and not his comments. -- Aminz 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In reponse Timothy can provide what critics of Edward Said said: "Said's academic critics argued that Said made no attempt to distinguish between the writings of poets such as Goethe (who never even travelled in the East), novelists such as Flaubert (who undertook a brief sojourn in Egypt), discredited mavericks such as Ernest Renan, and serious scholars such as Edward William Lane who were fluent in Arabic and produced work of considerable value: their common European origins and attitudes, according to Said, overrode such considerations" -- Aminz 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, do you think "passion, prejudice and political interests" are closer to "badly-researched" or "bigoted"? -- Aminz 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Said argues that "their common European origins and attitudes, according to Said, overrode" other considerations. So, as long as Timothy Usher or Merzbow and even H.E. are editing, I am sorry, their works are influenced by their cultural make up. Ha hahaha. But ME! No! ;) Ha ha ha ha! I love it. -- Aminz 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Spare us the condescending 'forgive them, they're western' rhetoric. These people are educated and informed.They know Islamic texts better than most Muslims do. They're not some midwestern trailor park dwellers who are blind to the world. If they've acted to push a bias, they're fully aware of it and are responsible. And Said never met Timothy Usher. His Excellency... 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the measures being considered against His excellency are both too strong and too weak. The problem isn't that he's here, or has a POV, but that he attacks people. The current proposed remedy allows him to return and make personal attacks, and to my best reading, provides for limited block periods, which the record shows he's been willing to undergo in exchange for being provided a forum for his attacks. At the same time, it bans him from editting articles, which isn't really necessary. I'm not saying most of his edits are good or bad, or that the POV he represents is reasonable, only that they don't and it doesn’t rise to the level of disciplinary action.
I propose:
In return for this,
In a nutshell, let's change the focus from punishment to prevention, and address only the most intolerable behavior. H.E., Merzbow, Pecher, Aminz, Tom harrison, Bishonen, what do you think? Timothy Usher 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Timothy, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Do you think the arbitrators will swallow the picture you paint of HE as an attack machine if only you present it as uncontested truth often enough? I doubt it. They have a fetish for evidence, examples, and diffs, and you've been starving them. Instead you've raised doubts that you know a personal attack when you see one, by your repeated demand that "all the personal attacks" should be removed from this arbitration—from the evidence! If you've ever given an example of what in the evidence it is that you consider "attacks", I've missed it (admittedly possible enough, so you may have, but it sure isn't what you normally do). I'm sorry, but arbitration is about criticizing other people, as harsh and unwiki as that may sound. "Your honor, make the witness shut up, he's saying I did bad things" won't work. If I were you I would seriously be looking to substantiate what I say, instead of this proposal based on the assumption that everybody already agrees with your version. At present you have the worst possible compromise between submitting evidence and not submitting evidence: you have an evidence section, but a worthless one. (So does Pecher, with his handful of antique diffs from when Amibidrohi was a clueless newb.)
Also, arbitration reviews everyone's conduct, so your proposal seems a little limited. Do you have any suggestion for doing something about Pecher's discourtesy [22], your own incivility and edit warring regarding Islam articles, and harassment of HE (I'm quoting a proposed finding by Dmcdevit) or harassment and disrespect towards me [23]? Have you formed an opinion about this recent unprovoked double-barrelled attack by Merzbow? For instance: Pecher has never spoken to me in a civil tone of ordinary human exchange—or, in a civil tone, period. I don't take it personally, I notice he talks like that to a lot of people, but do you think that's a good thing for the encyclopedia? I presume you see what Aminz says above about distress and pain. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC).
Can you outline in more detail which users you think reside in the 'gang' that you think is 'patrolling' the Islam pages? Never mind, you already did. Please stop playing innocent by making hit-and-run attacks of your own like this and then crying 'attack' when your assumption of faith in the editors of these articles is rightly questioned. - Merzbow 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I would not want to expand this case to look at Pecher's editing on Bernard Lewis. I can imagine there are problems, but looking at the article as it is now it seems fine. If he continues in the same vein in the future, perhaps the question will have to be revisited. I am hopeful however, that Pecher can read between the lines and realize that if he is not courteously working toward neutral point of view that the may end up banned from editing in this area. Fred Bauder 10:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred's made it clear he's going to ignore all allegations made in this case except those made against me. I've repeatedly informed him that ethnic differences and representations are not factors in this case. Unlike Publicola, I don't see this dispute as being one between "Muslim and Jew", but rather honest editors and those who wish to promote activist propaganda. Existing WP:policy is sufficient to guarantee neutrality in the articles in question, or at least they would have been if administrators here took any interest in maintaining such policies. Fred's accusation is that my 'overt anti-semitism' makes it impossible for him to hold the other parties responsible for anything. That's ridiculous. Even the parties involved didn't dream up that excuse for overlooking their actions. My 'anti-semitism' amounts to two comments, both on my talk pages, not directed to anyone in particular. The first was the use of the phrase "those Jews". The second, a more reckless one, lasted for all of 1 minute as I self-reverted almost immediately. Generally Wikipedia doesn't punish editors who self-revert their offenses. In contrast, my evidences page points to far many more occasions of attacks against the Muslim community here. My entire arguement has been that these Wikipedia articles are being used to push anti-Islamic activist views and propaganda. I've given the example of Robert Spencer's website forwarding its readers to Wikipedia articles. Timothy Usher has clearly attacked several users, such as IbrahimFaisal and BlessSin using their religions as a soft spot. Fred's expressed his intention to ignore all of this.On talk pages he admit to finding Pecher's works biased, but chooses not to reflect that finding on the Proposed Findings page. What he's suggesting is that he takes 1 comment on Jews (ie the use of the phrase "those Jews") to be more serious than the scores of occasions where clear and obvious anti-Muslim hatred was shown. This in itself is an extreme bias on his part. He is suggesting that The Jewish Wikipedian warrants far greater protections for slights against him than the Muslim Wikipedian does, even when the attacks against the Muslim community here are far greater in number, far more derogatory, and systemic. In fact, he's suggesting the attacks against Muslims here are utterly negligible. That's racist. His Excellency... 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
On the ban suggested against me, relative to the affect Timothy Usher's attacks and Pecher's editing, my comments have had little, if any, effect on the Wikipedia community. Both were on my talk page, directed to no particular user. Both were made in particularly heated moments. The latter was deleted immediately after my posting it, and therefore affected nobody. You only know of it because Hypnosadist went fishing into my edit history. Up until now, I did not express any disagreement with the penalty regardless, as I feel expressions of bigotry shouldn't be tolerated, regardless of circumstance. It's pretty clear now that the standards aren't being applied fairly here. Comments against Jews gets you the axe. Open and obvious attacks against Muslim editors and twisting of articles to push propaganda? That's too insignificant to warrant even a response. This is absurd. His Excellency... 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I been repeating this several times, while His excellency's action is not perfectly optimal, a mere probation has little effect on Percher and others. They need to be blocked for possibly shorter period of time, but again a probation=no punishment. Enforcing admins will have a hard time to figure out who's on probation, who's not. POV pushing/distorting info on articles have far more damages than comments made on talkpage. Now His excellency has established that his insult is not directly at anyone, banning him for PA seems absurd, since userpage and talkpage is usually given more leeway. (examples of racism on userpage and talkpages include admin User:Jiang and User talk:Jiang, attacking Taiwanese people, and my own userpage, countering Jiang's attack by attacking Chinese people). Those expressions usually do not violate any policy and users with such userpage/talkpages most likely goes unblocked. Individuals (except His excellency) need to be single out in order to maintain the integrity of arbCom (which is the last dispute resolution process) as well as avoiding being one-sided against His excellency.-- Bonafide.hustla 01:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at this fine new section titled "How Muhammad had such a great and significant achievement?" [31]. Sorry, that's a mockery of NPOV. Pecher Talk 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
It is the view of Bernard Lewis, Watt, D. S. Margoliouth. "great and significant" is what Lewis exactly says. Michael H. Hart in his book The 100 claims Muhammad was the most influential person in history. Please read what I've added. ---- Aminz 07:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyway, I'm out. When I joined Wikipedia, I hoped it would be a cooperative forum of reasonable, policy-abiding people, but these edits and the ones below, and many others like them, beggar belief. They make a mockery of all Wikipedia policies combined and of each of them separately. Most importantly, it's pointless to discuss anything with people who make these sorts of edits; I've tried and failed to extract anything even remotely resembling reasonable arguments from them. I've dealt with this nonsense too much, and I'm fed up. Pecher Talk 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This edit [32] has four components:
This is a very typical interchange on Islam-related articles. Also typical is the fact that H.E does not bother to make a showing on the talk page. Timothy Usher 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Pecher has been self-nominated for deletion. The occasion? [35]
It is entirely plain that H.E.’s pretenses of high-minded opposition to bigotry and discrimination were nothing but schtick carefully crafted and calculated to manipulate the sensibilities of certain administrators and the Arbitration Committee.
And it’s worked. You thought he might have had a point. Well, he does have a point. There it is, the same point he had when Tom harrison rightly indefed him to begin with, the same point he had when Bishonen thought he had a good one.
You can say, “well, we’re about to ban him.” But you’re not really about to ban him. You can’t ban him, because he can, and likely will, return as a sockpuppet (as he may have already), which will then, presumably, be allowed the same torturous and time-consuming benefit of the doubt you’ve allowed his last username.
Meanwhile, serious-minded, established and law-abiding editors are driven from Wikipedia. Pecher is indefinitely banning himself. Since 18 June, I’d indefinitely banned myself from Islam-related articles because it’s become clear, despite the deceptively unequivocal language of WP:NPA, that to participate is to invite personal attack and character assassination from pseudonymous users with nothing whatsover to lose. That’s two indefs for real people/established editors against “His excellency’s” - a throwaway account created only to attack, as Tom harrison observed early on - four months.
Tony Sidaway wrote, “The Arbitration Committee will stop all attacks.” [36] but that is manifestly untrue. You didn’t stop this, did you? For starters.
You knew that “His excellency” hates and attacks Jews, as per evidence. You knew that “His excellency” has long since adopted a modus operandi of harassing other editors generally, as per evidence, and block log(s). You knew that “His excellency” is more than willing to accept blocks in exchange for making attacks, as was made clear from his very first actions in these proceedings onward.
Yet you’ve indulged him. In the name of procedure, and in the name of non-discrimination (!) you’ve consciously, wilfully and advisedly indulged him.
This isn’t “His Excellency’s” diff - it’s Bishonen’s diff, it’s the Arbitration Committee’s diff, and it’s Wikipedia’s diff. Own it; you bought it; it’s yours.
Kindness to the cruel is cruelty to the kind. Timothy Usher 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I kind of feel bad for H.E. Everyone definitely has his/her own POV, even admins do, but the thing to keep in mind is as long as they don't reflect their POV in their edits for articles, POV is okay. We are human, we are bound of have POV. You guys are pushing H.E. to a corner. H.E.'s behaviors are not optimal but his emotional outburst is still quite understandable.-- Bonafide.hustla 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Congrats Arbcom another editor leaves as you do nothing to protect people Hypnosadist 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you please be more specific? Who left? If an editor is not making productive edits, it is not a loss to the community.--
Bonafide.hustla
22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)