Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Proposed decision

Bishonen has not been especially patient with His excellency

I just realized workshop pages tend to be ignored by arbitrators once they've placed proposals there (I'm referring to an apparently unread comment at the RFAr Eternal Equinox workshop), so I'm reposting here my comment on Fred's proposed finding of fact that "Bishonen has been very patient with His excellency":

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).[reply]

Non-rhetorical question: have you ever stopped to ask yourself how you'd feel were you one of the editors attacked by "His excellency"? I'd be curious to hear your answer.Timothy Usher 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to repeat what I said in Workshop to this duplicate message: H.E. began his campaign of "frustrated" vile personal attacks long before he came near the Islam articles, as my evidence section clearly shows (read the section on his attacks against Celestianpower for some choice quotes). He was not transformed from a decent, hardworking editor because of any "barbed-wire" fence - he brought the same behavior with him from articles like Ann Coulter and Fox News to Islam. His behavior and his problems are solely of his own doing, and to claim otherwise is to treat him as a child instead of as a responsible adult. I honestly cannot fathom your faith in this individual. - Merzbow 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor factual correction to myself - as Amibidhrohi he did have early edits to a number of Islam-related articles (none of the ones involved in this dispute), but the vast majority of his edits were to articles like CNN, Fox News, and Ann Coulter, and it is on these articles where his incivility and brutal personal attacks came into full flower. - Merzbow 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But H.E. has a point and it should be heard. Do you guys think Bishon, Zora, I and H.E. are all complaining about a completely non-existent problem? or that all the problems has its roots in H.E's personal attacks? --Aminz 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, he has engaged in a range of personal attacks and incivility far greater than anyone else has on these articles, in a manner very similar to how he behaved as Amibidhrohi on previous non-Islam articles. This is hard evidence that the real cause of H.E.'s problematic behavior lies within himself, not with the articles. Second, the positions he takes regarding issues of bias by other editors on these articles is consistently 10x more extreme than anyone else to the point where it is clear he cannot work with any other editors ("There's absolutely nothing in the realm of good faith in the works of any of the editors participating in the Islam-related articles" [1]). That's just one example from my "Wikipedia as battleground, conspiracy theories" section. I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing. - Merzbow 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are content problems. The most serious problem by far is the lack of any serious scholarship in the majority of Islam-related articles. You've got to have sourced content in order to have something to be neutral about. Otherwise, it's just the proclamation of an informal non-expert committee, and utterly useless to any serious research.

A few editors have solved this problem in a few places. Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly.

The solution is for other editors to read the sources and join the discussion in a sober-minded way to curb perceived excesses in the selection and treatment of sources in a principled and non-arbitrary manner.

"I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." - Merzbow's hit the nail on the head, as usual. Generally speaking, scholars enjoy correcting one another. The more well-informed serious-minded editors there are, of whatever persuasion, the more likely excesses will be uncovered and corrected.

It is wholly unnecessary and unproductive to observe that editors have points of view: the way to check them isn't to denounce other editors, but to inform oneself, argue the specifics, and stay involved.

Whereas more editors are needed, H.E. subverts this goal by driving other editors away. It’s entirely possible that some articles will come to reflect solely H.E.’s point of view, simply because few will be willing to undergo the treatment to which he’ll subject them. I know I’m not, and it looks like Merzbow’s not, either. No content dispute is remotely worth it.Timothy Usher 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Merzbow, I agree with you especially on the point "I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." The point is the cost actually paid. Wikipedia works based on consensus and not vote of majority unfortunately. If an editor doesn't want to accept the view of majority, everything stops. This will also discourage other editors. I think we should discuss this somewhere else as it seems irrelavant to this talk page. --Aminz 01:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Timothy, re: "Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly." Timothy, would you please kindly and for the sake of God get the Lewis book from the library and read it yourself. Just first 10-20 pages is enough. You can read it online on books.google.com or amazon.com . I *swear* that you will change your point of view. I have a roommate who has borrowed the book from me (actually by force); he says Lewis always talks bad about Iran and always praises Ottoman empire. He jokes that probably one of Lewis's Jewish ancestors have became an advisor to an Ottoman king since he says Lewis writes very good about Ottomans. (or simply compare this version of Dhimmi article [2] with Jewish Encyclopedia's sentence that brotherhood between Ishmael and Isaac was probably the reason for the tolerance which Muslims almost universally showed to the Jews, or this [3]. Yes at times the situation was bad (e.g. when the Ottoman empire was weak and was under threat at its borders) but that was not the general case) --Aminz 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aminz, I had read it, though not the whole book, but at least the parts to which you’re referring. The first pages are thoughtful discussion of the meaning of tolerance, the validity of judging the medieval Islamic world by modern standards, as discussed on [{Talk:Dhimmi]]. Lewis is on the mark, but I think Pecher’s right that it’s off-topic. Maybe there’s something else you had in mind. This fix, “While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe”” strikes me equally POV as what it replaced (“were reduced to the status of second-class citizens”), off-topic and more overtly argumentative. I agree, however, that the earlier version was too strident in its choice of wording. But that’s just my opinion. We could continue this discussion on Talk:Dhimmi were it not for the certainty that His excellency would take his attacks to that forum as well.Timothy Usher 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, and you do know that Lewis comments about the very phrase you referenced "the status of second-class subjects citizens(see the article) " that: "At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society...A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.".

Fine, you think it was a good faith representation of source and as equally POV as "While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe". You think using a term that conveys a formal condemnation while knowing that the authur doesn't intend that particular meaning, is a good faith representation of a source! Fine, this is the second point at which I can not continue discussion. You have your POV and I have mine. I don't wish to discuss this with you anymore. --Aminz 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The original sentence you are refering to is "Living in areas conquered by Muslims, these people were reduced to the status of second-class subjects and tributaries of a Muslim state." compare it with what Cahen states :"Taxation from the perspective of Dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"". SO, THEY WERE REDUCED TO tributaries of a Muslim state. NICE! --Aminz 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed wording: thank you, Fred

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).[reply]

Statement by H.E.

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

]

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

]

Just please heed what the arbcom tells you. Rejecting it and not abiding by it will not get you far. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where'd that come from? I never suggested I'd reject Arbcomm's finding. His Excellency... 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I believe what I see? --Aminz 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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."

I definitely agree with existence of anti-Islamist bias in Wikipedia articles but Timothy hasn't written much neither on Dhimmi, nor on Criticism of Islam article. --Aminz 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of my mainspace contributions constituted rewrites of awkward language, rearrangements of article structure, moving off-topic material to articles where it's on-topic, adding links and verifying the accuracy of scriptural references, and, most controversially, substituting well-established English language nomenclature (e.g. "Jesus", "Moses") for their Arabic equivalents (for which I was likewise accused of being on an anti-Muslim "crusade" - the contributor who said this had since apologized). I also believe that several of these articles are too critical, just as there are many - well, far more - Islam-related articles which are not critical at all. In both cases the material was likely added in good faith, by editors who happen to have a point of view. The solution isn't to denounce the editors for their points of view, but to focus on the content (as Aminz, Pecher, and Merzbow do). Editors should be adding sourced material and removing poorly-sourced material from both, and toning down language where it's either too pious or too strident. That bad faith is, as often as not, assumed is a deeply unfortunate aspect of the wikiculture that's evolved in this space.

And I am more than tired of the assumption that there is a fixed and binary divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. The translation issue is an excellent case in point: Aminz, Tom harrison, Striver, myself and others for, Jeremygbyrne, Anonymous editor, Netscott and others against. The most obvious equivalencies, such as that between Allah (lit. "the god") and God, were met with protests from those who believed one language's term to reflect badly upon the other, in both directions. Ultimately, consensus was gained for English language titles, but not before an acrimonious and personalized floor fight likewise premised on the thoughtless assumption of nefarious - and simplistic - motivations.Timothy Usher 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 have some experience of working with Timothy in the very controversial and often heated Christianity article. His posts can be seen in Archives 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and I think they show that he's able to collaborate, seek compromise, remain cool, and accept apologies. I have never seen him becoming aggressive. I have also seen him trying to help Alienus in a case where he felt (wrongly, in my view) that Alienus was being treated unfairly. Although I disagree with the support that he gave to that editor, I cannot help noting that he had been one of the victims of Alienus's numerous personal attacks ("your edits suck and so do you") and had usually opposed his edits, so his willingness to try to ensure that Alienus would be treated fairly is very much to his credit.

• I have looked briefly at some of the diffs supplied on the evidence page — for example some one from His Excellency saying that Jews are "a bunch of snots". I have never, ever, ever seen anything even approaching that from Timothy, and I think that putting him on probation for a year — as if his behaviour is the same — sends a terrible message to Wikipedians. I urge arbitrators to reconsider this.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It seems even the arbitrators are split on if the charges of edit warring should be "personalized" and even if the probation remedies should be personalized or not. Regardless, if Timothy is going to be cited for edit warring, so should we all. I don't see sanctionable edit warring as being defined by one or two instances only, but a pattern of disruptive reversions without evidence of an effort to reach consensus (of which I've provided copious evidence of H.E.'s perpetration of more than anyone else). - Merzbow 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Writes "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
• Writes of how Ali was "ugly".
• Writes about how Ali was "fat".
• Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
• Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
• Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (Ali).
• claims Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
• Doubts the existence of
  Al Muhsin
  .
• Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying his wife Fatima.

Madelung in his Succession provided a detailed critical analysis on these criticisms.

Now, on the other side of the spectrum we have:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Doesn't matter. The arbcom is not judging the scholars. They are judging user conduct. I mean if you use your reasoning, someone could call someone a anti-Jewish name and then say well...scholars say it all of the time. Doesn't work like that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if an academic scholar in a published journal article argues that "Aminz is/was crazy" then this will be a POV, "not" a personal attack on me anymore. --Aminz 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woohookitty, I've never called anyone an "anti-[Muslim] name". It's only H.E. who is making this about Muslims. Muhammad is not, after all, a stand-in for anybody else, and anyhow my views are hardly extreme: he was a creative, ideological and political genius whose life, from a contemporary perspective, was not without blemish. I could say much worse of Alexander the Great, who wrought havoc on a far greater scale, who built nothing lasting and whose religion was centered not on God but himself. I suppose I’ve just attacked Macedonians? Entertaining such lines of questioning change the subject just as much as do attacks on contributors, and are unlikely to lead to anything productive. Anyhow, I'm long since through talking about it, as it's quite clear that to do so invites attack, no matter how principled one's outlook. Reasoned discussion, much less consensus, is simply impossible in this environment.Timothy Usher 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to go back to the 19th century to find a parallel to Timothy Usher, that's saying something. In those days, prominent 'scholars' (and government leaders for that matter) also frequently used the N word. Heck, people then owned slaves. It was not conventional at the time to control one's expressions in respect to minorities. It wasn't the convention of the time to presume peoples of such minorities (and indeed 'foreigners') as equals to the superior white stock of Europe or America. In the context of the times, their view on Islam isn't unexpected. Even then, several scholars that you noted found it within themselves to see Islamic history from a neutral perspective. This isn't those times, and Timothy Usher's behaviors cannot be excused by your pointing out to people who died centuries ago who felt as he does. We're not in the 1800s now, and a person with that mindset cannot be allowed to edit Wikipedia with the intent of bending Wikipedia to his mindset.. His Excellency... 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This non-sequitur constitutes the very heart of your indictment. Putting aside the fact that we've never really sat down and talked about religion - you'd probably be very surprised to see how different I am from the demonic picture you've painted of me - criticism of Christianity is not an attack on Christians, nor is criticism of Islam an attack on Muslims. I’ve also expressed my belief that Jesus is not God, one of many points upon which I agree with Muhammad. If I am right, billions of Christians are sorely mistaken. If I’m wrong, then I am. It’s okay to disagree. You are only saying that a person with these ideas cannot edit here, that their contributions to mainspace are to be assumed inherently tainted, and it seems you’ve gained some support for this notion.

Aminz’ idea of encoding this into policy makes sense. It’d be a bad decision for Wikipedia to have such a policy, in my opinion, but if we’re to act as if it exists, we should be upfront about it. That would give lawfully-minded editors a chance to comply, deter the involvement of editors who are unlikely to follow the policy, and provide a basis for administrative warnings and actions short of ArbCom.Timothy Usher 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

My interest in Aisha began at Zora's request that I take a look at it and prevent someone from doing something to it that I can't recall, which didn't involve Aisha's age at all, but I believe some Sunni-Shia debate (by far the more salient of Aisha-related controversies). If you look at what I'm actually said on Talk:Aisha, you'll find me agreeing with Jeremygbyrne that such judgements have no place in mainspace. And I agree with Jeremy that the "Aisha age controversy" is a "figment of Wikipedia's collective imagination." My proposal was to remove poorly-sourced material and original research from "both sides," state flatly, matter-of-factly and non-judgementally the age of marriage according to Bukhari and move on. Focussing on the controversy only turned it into a Criticism-type article of the type you've complained about. I even recall complimenting you for one edit wherein you removed just such a poorly-sourced paragraph, an olive branch which was not to be returned. Similarly, I advocated the removal of, and attempted to remove, original argument from "both sides" of Criticism of Islam.Timothy Usher 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that, my first edits did involve age...but were defending Zora's version against an anon using multiple IPs to exceed 3RR. I must have been thinking about Husayn_ibn_Ali. Apologies. Here are the relevant diffs from 22 April, which I believe to represent my first involvement with this article: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] It is both related to the Sunni-Shia divide and the age controversy. During this period, Zora was being roundly attacked for being anti-Persian and anti-Shia - deeply unfair charges (I recall that this dispute iself went to ArbCom?) - and I felt somewhat obliged to help her out here and there, especially in light of the tactic of using anon addresses to evade 3RR. I suppose that consitutes edit-warring, but what else can you do when anons won't show on talk? Here is the associated discussion, and here is Zora warning me to leave it be lest I be blocked. Not very consistent with your allegations, is it?Timothy Usher 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy is a nice and friendly person and fair (as long as Pecher is not involved :) ). Do we want to really miss him? I don't want to lose my candidate for the award of being wikipedia’s selected detective specialized in detection of “sockpuppetry” and “ill-motivations”.--Aminz 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aminz. Although I blew it on one sockpuppet recently, who proved to be of a different puppetmaster than I'd assume. I don't try to look for ill motivations, but I admit the lack of effective day-to-day enforcement of

WP:SOCK

is frustrating.

And, H.E...take a look at Talk:Aisha#Must delete unsourced material, weak sources and original argument...not too different from (some of) what you've been saying about Criticism of Islam, where, before your attacks drove me out of this space, I'd been attempting to address your complaint about original research. We could have found some common ground here, just as Aminz, Striver, Tom harrison and I found common ground on translations. You could have looked at my entirely sincere compliment and decided to assume my good faith.Timothy Usher 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well that the only reason anyone really takes note of Aisha is because of the age controversy. The whole "Muhammad married a child" thing. Nobody is particularly interested in her battle with Ali, etc. What you wanted to do is to remove mention of that 'controversy' and state as a fact that she was 6, despite the presence of views that suggest she was much older. As I said, your entire interest in Aisha was that she was a 6 year old bride. Just as your interest in Muhammad was limited to describing him as a murderer, a war criminal, and a rapist. His Excellency... 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His excellency wrote, "Just as your interest in Muhammad was limited to describing him as a murderer..." - Are you sure?Timothy Usher 00:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I don't try to look for ill motivations" , I didn't mean it as a bad thing. All of us do it to some extent. Timothy, I have my own bias. I basically wrote this bit based on a few instances that I "personally" didn't like it. They are frequently uploaded into my mind out of my control. They are not related to any editor of wikipedia [except Joturner which I may have been wrong] but rather to Muhammad. One example was your analysis of Muhammad's motivations for the Battle of Khaybar. I think you were quick to detect alleged "ill-motivations" of his there. I think you view history with somehow a negative bias. --Aminz 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

• You have taken part quite intensively on the workshop page. That page is headed "This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions", and it carries many proposed findings about you. Didn't those give you any "inkling" that your conduct was under review? Findings are proposed on the workshop page for the purpose of being moved to "Proposed decisions" if an arbitrator has confidence in them. That's what the workshop is for.
• If you really thought His excellency was the only user whose conduct was at issue here, why did you yourself make proposals about other individual users on the workshop page? I see you proposed that I be counseled, and Tom Harrison commended—there may be more (who can face reading through that page?). I welcome arbcom review of my conduct, and I'm sure Tom does, too, but I'm nonplussed at how you can propose decisions about us and yet assume that you yourself— exclusively?—are exempt from such decisions.
• His E has a section devoted to your conduct in his evidence. I have another in mine. Did neither of those give you any inkling that your conduct was being questioned? Did none of the admins and users sharply criticizing your behavior towards me here over my admin actions in this case give you any hint? Intimation? Glimmer? What does it take? Bishonen | talk 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you seriously not see the point of my example? I'm very indifferent to your proposal that I be "counselled". I only mentioned it as a link in a logical chain. Do you think changing the subject will stop people noticing that you have nothing to the purpose to say? Bishonen | talk 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the Arbcomm can make decisions on parties whether they participate in this process or not. BhaiSaab ^talk 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen wrote, "I see you proposed that I be counseled, and Tom Harrison commended" - Did I?.Timothy Usher 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, my fault, you didn't propose commending Tom. I carelessly misread the placement of your sig under that proposal. You merely proposed that I be counselled, and merely argued against the proposed commendation of me. Those examples, however, are enough to demonstrate the point I was making: that you're proposing arbcom findings about the conduct of an editor who's not His excellency, and that this makes it a little illogical of you to claim that you thought only his Excellency's conduct to be up for review. Now please don't go off at a tangent about how you didn't mean me any harm. Take it as read, I don't suppose you did, and in any case it's not the point here. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, Bishonen. I don't know how much clearer I can make this: I don't care what ArbCom finds about H.E. except insofar as it relates to the permanant cessation - and hopefully removal - of his attacks. That's all. If H.E. hadn't continued attacking me throughout this hearing, I wouldn't have bothered to show, out of deference to his restraint. Other than the attacks, I've no issue with either you or His excellency.Timothy Usher 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is not peculiar at all. H.E. is the only editor who publicly and frequently has made personal attacks. The other editors play by the rules at least on the surface. Pecher has been quite helpful at least for his introducing good academic sources on several articles in wikipedia and for his hard work. Nothing would wikipedia achieve by penalizing him. But I do request Arbcom to give its opinion on the alleged accusations clearly and unambiguously; and similarly on Pecher's complains of me. --Aminz 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the bias problems, but I expect editors of good faith to address them; we don't have to bludgeon everyone. Fred Bauder 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping the proposed decisions page is nowhere close to done. The bias problems are obvious. My evidences illuminates the roles of these particular editors in perpetuating this bias. I think my evidences on Pecher clearly show he deliberately misrepresented texts to push a POV (the relevant talk pages are there for everyone to read, including responses from editors on all both sides of the divide noting his bad faith works), and yet the page so far doesn't even acknowlege that evidence. At this point I'm beginning to feel the evidences I presented haven't even been read. His Excellency... 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ignore them, I just concentrated on the most serious violations, yours. Pecher seems to have POV editing problems, which he needs to work on. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it the position of Arbcom then that even blatant and obvious POV biases, and bad faith editing through the deliberate misrepresentation of sources, are too insignificant to merit response from arbritrators, even to the limited extend of acknowleging such biases and bad faith editings? RFCs didn't address the problems, nor did notifying admins...You're suggesting arbritrators aren't interested in NPOV either. If that's the case, you should've told me at the very beginning that my collecting evidences and participating here was going to be an absolute waste of time. His Excellency... 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your comments about me aside (as I'm writing a response to Dmcdevit's diffs, including both clarifications and apologies), it is a big leap from "Pecher has a POV" to "Pecher's motives are highly questionable." In my experience, everyone here has a POV, including even His excellency. But I don't see any "bad-faith" editors here, only good-faith disagreements. I think it neither fair or warranted to declare a POV equivalent to bad faith. You also neglect the possibility that one might arrive at a certain perspective as a result of their scholarship: it seems to me most unlikely that one who's spent a lot of time studying Jews in Medieval Christendom or the Islamic world will arrive at a particularly favorable impression of either. Like anyone else, most scholars have points of view about the subjects they study. It's a big mistake to say that they must therefore be sanctioned or otherwise excluded from the debate.Timothy Usher 05:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, Mark Cohen has a good recent book on dhimmi: Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. I think it worthwhile reading the first chapter. There he explains what he calls two myths: 1. "The Myth of an interfaith utopia" (i.e. the belief that medieval Islam provided a peaceful heaven for the Jews) 2. "The counter-myth of Islamic persecution of Jews". He states that he is convinced that they equally distort the past. I was surprised to see how Israel-Arab conflicts has been influencial on the academic research.

"it seems to me most unlikely that one who's spent a lot of time studying Jews in Medieval Christendom or the Islamic world will arrive at a particularly favorable impression of either." Hey, please separate "Medieval Christendom" & "Medieval the Islamic world"; they are not even comparable. Feel free to dismiss "Medieval the Islamic world" alone by modern standards, but please don't compare it with "Medieval Christendom". In comparison, despite many upsets the Medieval Islamic world was percieved by many Jews as an interfaith utopia for them. --Aminz 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Europe was generally worse, as it was as recently as the first half of the infamous twentieth century.Timothy Usher 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And do you agree with Mark Cohen when he writes: "How might we address the underlying historical question in a way that avoids extremes and, at the same time, deepens understanding of why, as most reasonable observers will agree, the Islamic-Jewish relationship bred so much less violence and persecution than relations between Christian and Jews? The comparative approach has seemed the most useful one."? Sorry for bothering you. Just two more questions and I'll be at home. --Aminz 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. But my own very original-researchy not-necessarily-neutral feeling is that

Holocaust much harsher, and I have faith that if reliable sources are used and presented neutrally and without original argument, this is the likely result.Timothy Usher 09:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

This isn't the place to be discussing articles. Evidence of Pecher's bad faith editing are everywhere. The numerous occasions where he changed words or added more damning ones to make sources say things they aren't saying, that isn't just a POV, that's malevolently misleading and bad-faith editing. His Excellency... 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't the place to be discussing articles." - Then why have you repeatedly returned to discussing Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam (among others)? Even holding Pecher and me responsible for the latter, Pecher with his grand total of one edit to this article! I'd thought that at the very core of your statements here was the proposition that your attacks ought be seen as understandable - or even desirable - in light of the sorrily-biased state of Islam-related articles, which you blame on the editors you've attacked. Am I wrong?Timothy Usher 08:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I discuss them only to the extent they're relevant to this case. And yes, in light of your behavior, you do deserve to be attacked. A professed Nazi would be, as would an anti-black racist, or a homophobe. At this time though there's alot of sympathy for anti-Muslim bigotry, and so the line on that one isn't quite drawn yet. His Excellency... 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to criticize when you're quite find of mass-deleting almost verbatim quotes from scholarly history books by professors like Friedmann simply because you don't agree with them? Your editing methods are a clear and present danger to this encyclopedia. - Merzbow 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered this already. Quit the ridiculous mock ignorance. This is addressed in the Workshop page, on the Dhimmi talk page, and the Evidences page. It is clearly not a fact that Muslims view their marriages as contracts of slavery, yet that's how you and your friends framed it. Friedman might be a professor, but his writing here was wrong. Ask any Muslim, consult with any mosque. On the talk page there was no one individual arguing that he or she believed Friedman to be right. Even YOU admitted that. Yet you repeatedly include that paragraph in the article for no other reason than that it speaks ill of Muslims. His Excellency... 01:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any version of the article saying that "Muslims view their marriages as contracts of slavery," only that some Islamic scholars drew that analogy. Are you certain that's false? It would seem the rational course of action is check Friedmann, make sure he's being fairly represented, and follow up on his sources, rather than browbeating Merzbow. "Ask any Muslim, consult with any mosque," assumes that what Islamic scholars said in the distant past must be what all Muslims today believe and vice-versa, but the article neither states nor suggests anything like this.Timothy Usher 01:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Timothy pointed out, Friedmann is 100% right that "some Muslim scholars" have held that view, which is all that the excerpt is saying. Yet you repeatedly refuse to read and understand the plain text of what you were reverting, instead ascribing the inclusion of it to a desire to speak "ill of Muslims". Why aren't you over at the Spanish Inquisition page advocating for its removal because no modern Christians believe that heretics should be burned at the stake, hmm? This incident is a perfect illustration of your deliberate contempt for the Wikipedia editing process and for

WP:NPOV. - Merzbow 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Islamic jurists reject the possibility that a dhimmi man (and generally any non-Muslim) may marry a Muslim woman. Based on the Quranic verses 2:221, 60:10, and 5:5, the consensus opinion is that such a marriage would lead to an incompatibility between the superiority of a woman by virtue of her being a Muslim and her unavoidable subservience to a non-Muslim husband. As some Muslim scholars put it, marriage is like enslavement, with the husband being the master and the wife being the slave, and thus just like dhimmis are prohibited from having Muslim slaves, so dhimmi men are not allowed to have Muslim wives. Following the same logic, Muslim men were allowed to marry women of the "People of the Book" because the enslavement of non-Muslims by Muslims is allowed. Touching a sensitive point of the Muslim psyche, this prohibition was enforced with the utmost rigor, with any violations of it, including a sexual relationship between a non-Muslim man and a Muslim woman, being punishable by death All schools of Islamic jurisprudence, with the exception of Hanafi, treated dhimmis who married or engaged in sexual relations with Muslim women like adulterers, for whom the punishment is death by stoning. In cases when a non-Muslim wife converts to Islam, while her non-Muslim husband does not, their marriage is annulled.

The content speaks for itself. Even a half-retarded person knows what's being stated here, and you're not half-retarded. This should be evidence against you rather than evidence against me. You yourself expressed that you didnt believe this to be true, and yet you defend the inclusion.Your tactic (and given you're adept at wikilawyering, I'll say this is a disingenuous and decietful use of the tactic) is to defend its inclusion using WP:V alone, as if the policy exists to the exclusion of every other policy. This is evidence against you and your purposes here in Wikipedia, not me. If anything, this arbitration should commend me for taking a stand against your nonsense. His Excellency... 16:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, with feeling: All that the passage is claiming is that some Muslim scholars believed this, not that this is true. (And my version of the passage makes it even clearer, the version you reverted three times, not the version you disingenously excerpt above). Can you or can you not distinguish between the statement of a fact and the statement that some people believe something to be a fact? - Merzbow 02:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, do you agree that some Scholar in the very past did that. Doesn't the source says so? Does that sentence says so? This reminds me again of the Shia ritual purity restriction which was set in late 19th century but it was written as it has been always so. --Aminz 05:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If all the scholars Friedmann references for this view are truly pre-1000 AD or so, I wouldn't object to saying "some early Muslim scholars". - Merzbow 04:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Islamic jurisprudence, the early scholars are actually the most authoritative. In Sunni Islam, the gates of ijtihad were closed somewhere in the 10th century because all significant legal problems had been resolved by that time. There was a minority of scholars claiming otherwise, but it was, again, a minority. Pecher ^Talk 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But this doesn't mean later scholars agreed with the argument of those early scholars. --Aminz 07:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think "somebody's edits are bigoted" is fine either, because bigotry is such a loaded word that calling someone's edits bigoted necessarily implies that they are a bigot as well. In contrast, calling somebody's edits "badly-researched", to pick an example of an acceptable comment, implies nothing personally about the editor. - Merzbow 02:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you think "passion, prejudice and political interests" are closer to "badly-researched" or "bigoted"? --Aminz 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even the reddest-necked "trailOr park dweller" can still spell "trailer". Well, maybe not. Never mind. :) - Merzbow 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"midwestern trailor park dwellers"? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a mission to educate "trailer trash" just as we do to the poor children of Africa. After all, I R 1. Or was, I don't get out enough, so no longer have a red neck, being stuck at this computer as I am. Fred Bauder 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• H.E. formally apologizes to all those he's attacked, including Merzbow, Pecher, Tom harrison, Aminz, the arbitration committee and myself.
• H.E. agrees that his attacks should be removed from page histories (this is good for him as well, as others can't later dig them up).
• H.E. promises not to engage in further attacks, either against ethnic groups or other editors.

In return for this,

• H.E.'s ban and general probation are dropped. He should be free to, civilly and using reliable sources, challenge the biases he believes are present, with nothing hanging over his head except the categorical and non-negotiable imperative to avoid personal attacks.
• H.E.'s personal attack parole is very significantly strengthened, such that if he posts even one more attack, he's banned for at least a year.

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)[reply]

I'll agree to that on one condition: you, Pecher and Merzbow agree to accept a permanent ban from editing Islam-related articles. His Excellency... 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t speak for Pecher and Merzbow, but for my part, with the exception of a few translation copyedits and a post to Islam about translating the Shahada, I withdrew from participation nearly two months ago. You’ve been editting freely, adding “Salaam!” and the Islamic-green banner to WikiProject Islam, editting Muhammad to remove any mention of him as the founder of Islam, etc. Have I shown up to contest your edits or discuss them on talk? I conceded all this space to you a long time ago, and I told you as much, remember[20]?

It’s totally unfair - users aren’t supposed to be able to drive others away like that - but, hey, life isn’t fair, right?

Let’s start with me, and as Tom harrison and Aminz aren’t mentioned in your demand: I’ll continue to stay away from Islam-related articles, including even standardizing transcriptions and adding links if you like - your call - and you’ll return the favor by apologizing to me, Aminz and Tom harrison for the distress you’ve caused us, agree never to attack any of us ever again, and to the removal of your attacks from the history.

As for Pecher and Merzbow, it would seem that you’re saying you intend to attack them until you’ve driven them off as well. Is there no way you can agree to work with them civilly, or must they, too, withdraw? Well, I’ll let them work it out with you, as it seems you and I have a deal. H.E., your generosity is deeply appreciated.Timothy Usher 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, none has caused me more distress and pain in wikipedia than as Pecher has done(and probably the converse is also true). --Aminz 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject Islam page is MUCH nicer now that you've quit your editing to the project page, though the conflict that went on before pretty much has it devoid of participation. The green thing wasn't mine, but I think the page could use some color. There's no such thing as "Islamic-green", btw. The "Salaam" is directed to everyone. Ever been to the mid-east? Hotel concierges often greet everyone with "salaam" as a show of respect to all their guests...The notion that only Muslims should be greeted with "salaam" only adds to the sense of division..So I added "salaam" to the opening sentence, and then went on to add that all editors are welcome, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. As for the Muhammad article, that non-Muslims believe he invented the whole thing is a given. That's why they're not Muslims. There's no reason to explicitly state that in an encyclopedia. I'm happy to hear you're no longer involved in Islam-related pages. His Excellency... 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually indifferent to H.E.'s case. I am not going to work on criticism of Islam anymore. I have also created a dhimmi article for myself here [21]. I'll edit it for myself whenever I got free. So, I don't think I'll have any conflict with either H.E. or Pecher. And I am not going to be involved into politics either. I may shift into Jesus related articles where I feel there is some lack of mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians (especially regarding the cross & Saint Paul). --Aminz 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in an apology from him, only in his future behavior. I do not care if he promises to avoid personal attacks, as long as he can be blocked for progressively longer periods if he does make any, and can be banned if he persists. The personal attacks should be removed in any case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

Actually I guess Pecher should have the same feeling towards me. distress and pain! --Aminz 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bishonen; Have I misunderstood, or are you asking for diffs showing His excellency's/Amibidhrohi's personnal attacks? Do you just want those against Timothy Usher, or should I include those against myself as well? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tom. I'm not asking for anything, just advising TU about what the arbcom asks for. See for instance the terse statement at the top of the page here: "Evidence is more useful than comments". Or "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading" here. For example, he hasn't offered any counterevidence to HE's "Timothy Usher" section, or to mine. (Well, I don't think any counterevidence to mine exists, but then I'd be likely to think that.) Of course claims you make need evidence too, but I'm sure you knew that. Btw, when you mention Amibidhrohi... if I may advise again, fresh evidence weighs more than stale, especially if you're making the point that harmful behavior is still going on. The Amibidrohi account hasn't edited since early June. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Most of the diffs advanced to demonstrate my incivility are from that same period; do they not likewise grow stale? In any case, I've responded to some of his evidence, and will do respond to more if I get the chance. I've also provided a link to a subpage of my user talk above, where I respond to Dmcdevit's diffs. As for your evidence, I think it aptly reflects the distress which I'd felt as a result of the ongoing attacks.Timothy Usher 01:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect they will not rely only on His excellency's (or anyone else's) descriptions, but will read the diffs themselves. I'm glad to know that suits us both. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the diffs...yes. For example, Bishonen asks above, "Have you formed an opinion about this recent unprovoked double-barrelled attack by Merzbow?", but all I see is a comment by Tom harrison about careless misrepresentations of edits to Aisha.Timothy Usher 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Bishon has copy/pasted a wrong diff. --Aminz 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on that triumph, TU. Bishonen | talk 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't know if there's an actual gang, so I don't think I can have already done that. I was referring to and quoting what Zora said about feeling like you're facing a gang all alone. I only had one rather brief experience (and have no plans for going back for more), wherein edits and linguistic improvements that I'd spent time on were reverted within the minute—in other words, they weren't read—and everybody who spoke to me was scornful and hostile. Pecher was one of them. I don't know if those people habitually patrol the article. I realize now that they probably thought I was there to troll and stir up trouble, because of my involvement in this case. In reality I was so far from trying to "make" evidence that I didn't even check back to see what had happened to my edit until weeks later— I thought it was so uncontroversial it was bound to be welcomed, regardless of different ways of viewing Lewis and/or Said. I was very surprised it had been reverted. Honestly, Merzbow, I don't regard you as an unreasonable person. I appeal to your sense of justice. Have you read the thread I linked to? Do you really think I was civilly received? That my edits deserved to be reverted on sight? That what was there before was better? Bishonen | talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

If anything from that thread leaps out at me, it’s this:“The "disgusting ethnic discourse" exists because "certain" people of certain other ethnicities and cultures insist on editing on topics of Islam and Muslims with the intent of pushing their POV.”16:06, 24 July 2006. Any doubt one might have entertained about which “certain other ethnicities” he was talking about was removed when he followed up with, “I certainly do not go about editing on topics on Jewish history or topics of Jewish/Muslim conflict...”[24].Timothy Usher 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, your description of what you said in Evidence is simply not true. How can you claim you "don't know if there's an actual gang" when you stated verbatim that "It's no wonder people flee these gang-patrolled pages" [25]? That statement right there is completely yours, and is not a quote or a reference to anything Zora said. And are we to believe that the two individuals you accuse of bad editing by name a couple sentences previous, Karl Meier and Pecher, are not implied to be members of this gang? I'm not going to get into the tarbaby of the specifics of this content dispute. All I'm asking is that you either stand behind your accusation that a gang is patrolling these pages and your implication that Meier and Pecher are members of such, or retract said statements. - Merzbow 21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a reference to anything Zora said? Zora's evidence: "I felt as I were facing a gang all alone." —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zora has made no accusation that there is a gang, only that she felt that way. That is a million miles away from claiming there actually is a gang and naming specific individuals. I'd be extremely offended if I was Zora and intended to make no such accusation, but then have someone else actually make it and then try to claim that they were simply quoting and "referencing" me. Let alone claiming that one did not know there was an "actual gang" when in fact one had stated that there was, in no uncertain terms. - Merzbow 00:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. This is almost funny. Do you think Bishonen was referring to a literal gang, with leather coats and initiations? After a hard days work fighting on the streets and selling dope, logging on to push POV on Wikipedia articles? Bishonen is referring to the same thing Zora is. "Gang" is a metaphor. Of course, you know that..This is a poor method aimed at drawing attention away from the point people try to make, by twisting their rhetoric. His Excellency... 15:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, I do believe in your sense of justice. I have recently found another instance of *what I see* as another misrepresentation of a source by Pecher; but this time on the "Battle of Khaybar" page. It is about the sentence:"Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests." which Pecher wrote and Timothy was defending against my request of having it attributed to some scholar. I'll send the relevant paragraphs from the

Encyclopedia of Islam through email for you. I have already sent it for Timothy. Then I would be thankful if you could let me know your opinion on that issue. I, myself, will write more details on this soon but am a bit busy now. --Aminz 23:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

His sense of justice? He never took exception to Pecher's misinterpretations of sources. He was okay with Dhimmi explicitly saying Muslim marriages are unions of slavery. He's as bad as Pecher. His Excellency... 15:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for Bishonen: Bishonen, when you were participating in the Bernard Lewis discussion, did you not notice the muffled swipes at other editors' Jewish backgrounds?[26],[27]. To my eye, that's easily the most salient thing about that thread, but you said nothing about it there, or here. Instead you speak of a “gang”, presumably referring to Pecher+Tickle me - the very editors to whose ethnicity His excellency had referred, to their protest. Did you think such a line of discussion warranted in this instance?Timothy Usher 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, could you please be a bit honest. Yes, it is a truth that H.E. has clearly made many uncivil comments. BUT why don't you guys try to understand the point that Bishonen is trying to make? I believe you guys are trying to show that Bishonen doesn't assume good faith. And by doing so, try to disprove her argument as a whole. I support the feeling expressed by Zora and Bishonen. If that is supposed to mean that I am not assuming good faith, let it be so. At the same time, I don't wish to support H.E. in anyway. He has not been nice to me most of the time. --Aminz 08:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I am less concerned about her accusations of gang editing then her misrepresentations of her own words in Evidence regarding this matter (and her attempt to hide behind Zora's much less inflammatory and fundamentally different words when asked to back up her claim). People need to either own up to what they say or retract their words if they are unwilling to do so. Especially administrators. If this makes me unpopular for saying so, then so be it. - Merzbow 02:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, re your last sentence: that Bishonen acts rightly indeed seems to be a foregone conclusion, as seen early on, when your evidence section was asked to be removed as irrelevant, a standard that's clearly not been applied since (despite a motion to do so).

I am, for my own part, finding it difficult to avoid the impression that Bishonen is quick to see discrimination against Muslims, but strangely blind to blatant anti-Semitism - an observation consistent with her broad sympathies in this case, as well as her characterization of the Bernard Lewis thread.Timothy Usher 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I get the sense you're about to put your foot in your mouth but once again. What 'anti-semitism'? His Excellency... 04:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, the same question to you: Are you sure that you aren't quick to make comment on some points but are not so willing to comment on others? H.E.'s mistakes are clear to everyone. What's the point of repeating them over and over again? I don't get your point. --Aminz 05:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bishonen for this obsevation: " (User:Karl Meier, for instance, never appears on talk, he merely reverts "to Pecher".) " --Aminz 08:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, *I think* this evidence of her" (User:Karl Meier, for instance, never appears on talk, he merely reverts "to Pecher".) " was what Bishonen meant. That there are editors who don't participate in discussion and revert to someone. I can show you other instances where Karl has done so. So does Tickle me sometimes. I think this was the problem. Am I mistaken? Zora on the other hand when had a conflict with Pecher and others, found no Muslim out there helping her. So, she asked Anonymous Editor and some other Muslim editors to help her out there. She felt she is alone. --Aminz 04:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Timothy Usher has upgraded me to anti-semite now, that's interesting. Perhaps you'll drop me a line if you redefine me as actual nazi, because I'm taking this page off my watchlist. Do people realize this is arbitration? You spend countless hours bickering on talkpages and leave the evidence page to take care of itself. Well, the diffs offered in evidence are what the arbs are actually going to read. They're interested in what happened out there, what went down and what is going down now, not in what the debating team has to say about it. Who triumphs over who on these talkpages doesn't actually matter. I for one plan to keep my involvement from now on strictly down to supplying relevant examples by way of evidence. (Not that I expect to need to do much more of that either.) It's nothing to me whether Merzbow reads them with an open mind or not. You see, he's not an arbitrator. I'll make one last exception, to make sure it's understood that yes, I do say Pecher gangs up on and scares off new editors on Bernard Lewis. I don't know about Meier, I don't see enough of him in the History to say. He kneejerk-reverted me without comment, make of that what you will. And I haven't mentioned User:Tickle me, have I? In my opinion he gangs up with Pecher. I haven't named these names in my evidence, as I was arguing a general point about the climate on the Islam pages. I still think that approach more constructive, but since you insist, here it is. Bishonen | talk 05:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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)[reply]

How many times more courteous am I expected to be to my opponents than they themselves are? Does Bishonen, who claims that Bernard Lewis is gang-petrolled, work courteously with other editors? Does Aminz, who admits: "I am not assuming good faith in the case of Pecher"?[28] Does His excellency? Why if there is a conflict on that article, then the problems are with my editing, rather than with Bishonens's? Pecher ^Talk 06:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just myself or Aminz or Bishonen, it's also Editorius, Netscott...

If everyone sees you as a trouble maker, it can only mean one of two things: 1) everyone is deluded..or 2) you're a trouble maker. His Excellency... 07:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher, you have stated in many cases that you are not assuming good faith in my case. I have quite strong reasons not to assume so. I do consider you a valuable editor of whom I have learned a lot BUT I do believe you have teased me intentionally in several cases. For example, do you want me to present how you summerized the article from

Encyclopedia of Islam as "Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests." and How you censored Watt's view and even pretended you don't know it and also called Watt's view as "nonsense"? --Aminz 07:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

His excellency, don't put words in the mouths of other people. So far, the claim of me being a trouble-maker has been restricted to you and perhaps a couple of other people who generally agree with you. That's quite far from "everyone". Aminz, it doen't hurt to show diffs when I admitted I did not assume good faith on your part. Pecher ^Talk 07:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should add Bhaisaab, Striver, and Zora..Who was that person on Wikiproject Judaism who said you're a POV-pusher misinterpreting Stillman? My Evidences page goes to sufficient depth (though not comprehensive) in showing that your career in Wikipedia has been entirely 'bad faith'. His Excellency... 16:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have stated in many cases that you are not assuming good faith in my case. I had edits of these sorts in my mind: [29], [30]. --Aminz 07:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have proposed probation for anyone who edits articles which relate to Islam. The possibility of banning for biased editing would apply to anyone who edits in this area, including those you are complaining about. The other arbitrators may single out individuals; I don't intend to do so. Fred Bauder 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't intend to single out editors other than myself. This 'probation' you speak of has no meaning whatsoever. I see no practical use of such a statement. I don't see how a blanket judgement that all editors of Islam-related articles are under probation is actionable. Does that include editors not involved in this case? Should I inform Karl Meir that, as of his next revert to some Islamic article, he's under probation? As an arbitrator, you don't have authority to extend your judgement across all of Wikipedia. Had that been the case, arbitrators could, on a whim, simply invent binding Wikipedia policy that affects all editors. Anyway, it doesn't need saying that it's already against policy to edit in violation of policy. It doesn't need saying that editors violating policy can be blocked. That's already the case. That's a given. While you may intend your statement to imply you're aware and responsive to all abusers of policy, in truth your "probation for anyone" statement is devoid of any meaningful substance.His Excellency... 17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why doesn't someone make a template to put on the userpages of those who are on probation so admins can easily keep track? BhaiSaab ^talk 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully. Fred isn's suggesting probation on Pecher or anyone else mentioned here. He's limiting punishments to me. In addition, he's suggesting some ad-hoc categorical probation on all editors of Islam-related articles. I've never heard of such a thing. I don't think it's practically actionable at all. His Excellency... 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NPOV is something specific to Wikipedia; in addition, see

Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. We don't say that someone was great and significant, but only state the facts. If someone was great and significant, it must be apparent from the facts. Pecher ^Talk 07:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I didn't say Muhammad was great. I said he had a great achievement (1/4 of the population are Muslims; so Muhammad had a great achievement.) I wasn't evaluating his achievement though. What do you suggest for the heading? --Aminz 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This edit[32] has four components:

• The Islamic University of Medina is treated as a reliable academic publisher not just of religious opinion, but of history.
• The word "Byzantine" is replaced by "Roman", because Byzantines are called Romans in Islamic texts. On talk, it's been asserted that this should trump prevailing English language usage.
• The "Muslim" and "Western" views are set against one another, inviting readers to take a point of view depending on their religion and national origin - compare my suggestion (on talk and in the history) of traditional and academic views.
• The "Muslim view" is duplicated in both sections - though far smaller, the "Western" view is now followed by a rebuttal.

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)[reply]

[33]

ITAQALLAH 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

As a result of his edits, the Muslim view is present both in the "Muslim view" section and in the "Western academic view" section. I'm resigning; I can't deal with such editing anymore. Pecher ^Talk 08:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just noticed that (and added it to the bullet points above). The idea that H.E. is only asking for neutrality is perhaps the most absurd pretense put forth during these procedings.Timothy Usher 08:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just a correction: the IUoM is not considered the publisher, it is dar-us-salaam (the work is claimed to have been published by a number of presses in fact). IUoM is the institution which reviewed and endorsed the publication, as did the muslim world league. naturally the university specialises in all things islam-related, including early islamic history, and it has a research department devoted to seerah (and primarily the analysis of the classic texts) and has produced a number of papers on the topic ([34] use google trns. to get a rough idea?). we have been debating this on the talk page for a long while, and IMHO i do not believe any of the critiques offered are established or consistent.

ITAQALLAH 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

What the heck? I didn't divide the article into Western v. Muslim perspectives. It's been like that for a while now. I reverted the article to Iqatallah's version because I strongly disagree with exclusion of The Sealed Nectar as a source on the grounds that it isn't a western publication. The only change that can be attributed to me is the adding of the word 'academic' after "Muslim". I dislike the idea that Wikipedia should conclude that Western scholars are academic, while Muslim ones are "traditional". The practice of Muslims of compiling information along with credible bibliographies (ie isnad) goes back to centuries after Muhammad's death. The Hadith and Sira are the sources used both by Muslim scholars and "Western" ones. To suggest that the Western interpretation of the same sources is 'academic' while the Muslim interpretation is just "Muslim" is ridiculous. Amongst Muslims, The Sealed Nectar is considered notable (the book has been well regarded by the IUoM and MWL as Iqatallah points out), scholarly, and credible. Works by Muslim scholars show a POV just as western works do. It is not for Wikipedia to endorse one region's or culture's interpretation of texts to the exclusion of others when different interpretations are notable and published. NPOV demands that all sides be adequately represented. His Excellency... 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

, 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)[reply]

Timothy, here is why Pecher left: 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

I would be thankful if you could explain how my edit was a mockery of all Wikipedia policies (particularly NPOV). Nay, Pecher simply didn't like my edit above. Hey, where was your sense of defending western scholarship? Aren't Lewis, Watt, Margoliouth famous scholars? Where is your defence of western scholarship? Are Lewis, Watt and Margoliouth talking out of hot air? How is that presenting western scholarship has become mockery of Wikipedia policies?

H.E. is definitely BAD but I hate it when people clear themselves through stressing on negative points of others. --Aminz 09:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be why Pecher retired, but it's defintely not why he nominated his own page for speedy delete.Timothy Usher 09:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overreacting Timothy, and so is Pecher. With each additional pathetic outburst H.E. loses more credibility. (I'm reminded of Karl Marx's quote "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."). I can't imagine that his most ardent supporters can now think positively of his presence in Wikipedia (although at this point I'm beyond being surprised in this regard). Letting him drive anybody off is letting him win. It's obvious he will be banned for some number of months (although I find anything short of indefinite lenient for a guy who indulges in fantasies of physical violence against his opponents [37]). If he comes back with socks, it should be plainly obvious (and from what I've seen action is taken very quickly against banned editors who return with socks). If he returns afterward with more of the same behavior, we must hold ArbComm to its promise to take action under the probation terms. I have every faith that they will, and very quickly. If they don't, only then will I consider the project in real trouble. Turn your backs on H.E., ignore anything he says that isn't bend-over-backwards civil, and delete his garbage attacks on sight and report them. Fight him with a wall of silence, and give him exactly as much respect as he earns. - Merzbow 17:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merzbow, it appears I'm about to be sanctioned for posts much like the one I've made above. Policy asks us to keep a cool head when confronted with this kind of stuff, but I'm afraid I just can't. Gotta go...Timothy Usher 23:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. - Merzbow 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Everyone's allowed one outburst, or even two. It's human nature. But 70 or 80 over six months (See my evidence section)? That's just malice. - Merzbow 05:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats Arbcom another editor leaves as you do nothing to protect people Hypnosadist 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]