User:His excellency/Arbcom evidence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arbcomm Evidences:
Following is shit I collected for my arbcomm case...Several of the arbitrators demonstrated they had no interest in anything I had to say. Apparently my saying a couple of unfriendly things about Jews so eclipsed anything anyone else did, that the arbitrators figured it wasnt worth the effort to even look at anything else. Well, here is what used to be my evidences, which I may use later, or more likely, will be of use to someone else seeking to deal with these people
My defense is that my ‘incivility’ had been in response to blatant POV-pushing and effective defamation Islam in certain articles here. Where I have responded with expressed outrage (not that such expression is generally acceptable), most Muslims have responded by abandoning Wikipedia altogether. Of the members of WP:Islam, only 3 or so actually bother to participate in what has become a forum dominated by individuals seeking to vilify the religion of Islam, the history of Muslims, and even their current circumstances.
My case is limited to these three individuals listed as participants in this dispute: Timothy Usher, Pecher and Merzbow. Here is evidence of those assertions, separately presented on each individual. There are many more involved in this POV campaign, but this response is of course limited to the three others mentioned here. All these users are experienced, and have demonstrated thorough knowledge of WP policies. It would therefore be unreasonable to attribute their deviations from norms as ignorance of WP policy. These editors at times offer 500 posts across the span of 5 to 6 days, so for obvious reasons my 'research' is incomplete and not comprehensive.This entry and its indictments are not comprehensive, as I do not have the time,nor frankly, the will, to produce what would be a single complete, all-inclusive and comprehensive account of the detriment to Wikipedia that stems from the selective recollection of history and current-events demonstrated on Wikipedia because of the presence of these individuals. Of the three, my case against Usher and Pecher is more solid, as their antipathy towards Islam and Muslims, explicit and implicit, through their editorial contributions, has been more visible. It's against them I would like to see measures being taken. I have had some heated conflicts with Merzbow, but at least at this time, I neither see the implicit bias nor expressed antipathy to warrant strong measures being enforced against him.
I would suggest you view for yourself the quality of the following articles, as well as follow the commentary on the talk pages Since the beginning of this Arbcomm case, their quality might have changed somewhat (for better or worse), so please look at their respective histories.:
Muhammad as a warrior,, Banu Nadir (improved, Neutral-ized thanks to additional editorial involvement), Criticism of Islam (please look through the sections, and consider if you've ever seen such a comprehensive stockpiling of accusations in any other encycopedia), Safiyya_bint_Huyayy (compare the Wikipedia article to IslamOnline.com version), Kinana_ibn_al-Rabi, Asma bint Marwan CAIR (the Wikipedia article is largely an indictment against the organization [while the congressionally supported US Institute of Peace commends it]), Aisha, Battle of Mutah, Islam in the United States, Islamic science, Battle of Khaybar, Dhimmi (slightly improved [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhimmi&oldid=59063552 since I had first noticed it)
The Criticism of Islam page is 118kb in size (contrast with 24.5 kb for Criticism of Christianity and 6.2kb for Criticism of Judaism). While the increased attention directed towards Islamism and Islamist terrorism warrants (or at least explain) some additional attention, the size of this particular article is unbecoming of an encyclopedia entry. It is filled with the most detailed analysis of every criticism levied against Muhammad, notable or not. Copied onto a Word document, the 'page' takes up 40 pages - on smaller pages it would probably take enough space to warrant calling it a book. The POV bias is obvious.
Recognition of a problem on Wikipedia articles by other users/ discussion on biases: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
Mediation Cabal case on Banu Nadir. State the article was in during the dispute:[13] Timothy Usher and Pecher make two of the three involved on one side: [14]
Outside Wikipedia: Recognition of a 'conflict'on Wikipedia by Islamophobe Robert Spencer himself On JihadWatch.com[15][16] The Independent Center for Strategic Studies and Analysis:[17]
Contents |
[edit] Timothy Usher
My statements are supported by samples of his contributions and responses to them, going back a few monnths. This is by no means the whole of his record, but hopefully enough to make the point that this editor has contributed to an extreme disruption, in the sense that he hinders Wikipedia from being what the project was intended to be.
In his own words, T. Usher has expressed his view on Islam and its Prophet quite vividly, often expressing his thoughts to Muslims here with little regard for the offense he inflicts on them . [18] [19] [20] [21] He’s expressed his view on the connection between medieval histories on Islam to ongoings in the world today (almost certainly the US "War on Terror) and has implied that changes to Wikipedia should be responsive to reality, if not affect changes. He has made several remarks that suggest his editings and actions on Wikipedia have been influenced by what he had seen of Islam or Muslims in the media. He has made it quite clear that he does believe Wikipedia to be a battleground, almost in the literal sense. [22] [23] [24]
I became aware of him through his edits on Islam related pages, firstly his changes to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam project page. His edits to that page included ‘dos and don’ts’ instructions to the membership requesting that Muslims not address each other with “salaam”, that they not affix PBUH after the names of the prophets (Muslims seldom actually do this on Wikipedia, otherwise only on talk pages), and a reminder to Muslims that “Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life”.[25] [26]
I, and others, have explained how these requests would offend any Muslim, also expressing my suspicion he was well aware of this. He dismissed repeated responses and engaged in edit wars to keep his additions regardless. Indeed, he had later expressed his view that the very show of reverence of Muhammad with “PBUH” was an act of support for alleged atrocities committed ‘upon the Jews’. [27] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=58662346 [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] Additionally he has repeatedly deleted content from the WP:Islam talk page, claiming it amounted to "spam". [33] [34]
He has engaged in various actions that are difficult to interpret as being in ‘good faith’:
- This includes:
- Impersonating a Muslim (or a “wikijihadist” as ‘the target’ put it) and baiting a seemingly unwilling individual, clearly critical of Islam, to be involved in the Muslim Guild.[35] [36]
- Calling attention to the Muslim Guild on the ANI entry for the “Conservative Notice Board” which had already been removed from Wikipedia namespace: [39]
- Harassment of users:
- Zora over her communications with Muslims:[40]
- Harassing Muslim user for expressing his faith on his user page (I suggest you view refuting opinions from other editors on Timothy’s actions in the thread):[41]
- Attacking a Muslim RfA applicant on grounds that he is a member of the Muslim Guild: [42] [43] [44]
- Observation by user:aminz suggesting Usher ‘cleverly’ manipulated opinion:[45]
- Full text of RfA, Timothy’s loaded questions appear at the end:[46]
- Attacks/Harassment of User:Zereshk : [51] [52] [53]
- Attack on user:BhaiSaab for supporting a point of mine:[54] [55]
- Attacks on myself:
-
- More of the same: [59]
BhaiSaab characterizes Timothy's harassment of me as "Wikistalking": [67] My responses: [68], [69] [70]
On the Muslim Guild talk page explained I wanted unbiased knowledgeble contributions, similar requests are made in other Wikiproject pages, and a substantial percentage of editors on the Muslim Guild are non-Muslim and non-sympathetic. He characterizes my actions as my seeking a group to 'attack' with. [71] He later alleges I and User:BhaiSaab made 'personal attacks' although I make no comments directed towards any user. [72] My response: [73]
Wikilawyering: to retain offensive content Dhimmi: [74] As a form of personal attack: [75]
- Defense of FairNBalanced’s display of highly offensive images:[76]
- "We're at war" justification of his defense of User:FairNBalanced:[77] Netscott takes offense to Timothy Usher's rhetoric: [78] [79] [80] Somehow manages to use the Muhammad cartoons controversy to justify defending FairNBalance'd display of hate speech on Wikipedia. [81] Netscott views Timothy's words as "embracing such hateful displays" and "defending hate speech": [82] [83] [84] [85]
I am not the only, or the first, editor to have criticized his admitted opinions and his editing methods reflecting his views: [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]
RedCrescent feels an admin should have done something about him: [96]
Incivility: comparison of editor to a murderer : [97]
Additional edits reflecting his expressed views (where reading more of a thread provides better context than a diff, I've included the link to the thread section):
- Inflammatory or insensitive remarks on Muhammad, often directed to Muslim editors:
:...as for "violating the women", Muhammad himself violated a woman named Safiyah after torturing her husband and beheading him : [98] "...by modern standards Muhammad would be considered a war criminal": [99] [100] "No, it's not about proving that Muhammad was a child abuser. What is proven is that the Hadith of Bukhari and Abu Dawud say that Aisha told a number of people that she was six when Muhammad married her and nine when they had sex.": [101] "That the ancient Jews were, by their own admission, genocidal criminals, then millenia later, so was Muhammad and his followers? I'd have hung them all.": [102] "...but would behead them, seize their properties and enslave their women and children, as did Muhammad, or expel them as did Umar" : [103] Read the next paragraph of the article: raping female slaves doesn’t sound like kindness to me - if you have a different perspective to share, I’d be interested to hear it." : [104] "no mention of the fact that he and he alone was exempted from the four-wife limit (33: 50, thanks be unto Gabriel for conveniently coming to his rescue)," [105] Edit summary:BlessSins, please don't say "the Prophet" in edit summaries - his name is Muhammad "[106]
Expressing outrage at "political correctness" defending "islamism": [107]
- Support for Category: People Killed by order of Muhammad, which has since failed (notice, his is one of only two "strong keeps): [108]
- On article Musaylimah, so called midieval 'false prophet', Timothy edits to give the appearance that Muhammad similarly (ie falsely) ‘claimed’ to be a prophet”: [111] [112]
Talk:Muhammad No time is a bad time to call Allah "moon god": [128]
Reverting Quran to include selectively mention verses readers may consider ‘violent’ (originally Pecher’s edits): [129]
The "pedophile" allegation is well known: [130] [131] [132]
Support for now-deleted "Conservative Notice Board" to make a POINT : [133]
- Entry to "Did you know" template "Did you know the booty captured by Muhammad...":[134]
- Seeks Pecher's contribution to undo "Islamist-sympathizers'"work on "Islamism":[135]
[edit] Pecher
Pecher’s edits have been repeatedly found to mischaracterize texts he uses as sources. Given every single edit he has made on any topic related to Islam demonstrates the same objective (for the love of God don't misread as 'objectivity') and bias, I'll only post single instances of edits that show the selectivity in editing which WP:NPOV rejects. See Percher's edit history.
Where I am more annoyed with Timothy Usher because of his attacks on Islam, Muslim groups and Muslim contributors, and myself; I believe it is in the interest of Wikipedia to take an even more serious look at Pecher's work. Pecher does far less in the way of Talk commentary than Usher, but contributes far more to articles in the way of content. I cannot stress enough that the entirety of his edit history where Islam-related articles are concerned displays a malicious desire to push a single POV, and needs to be reviewed. What I have presented here is an incomplete sampling, and there is much more in terms of edits suggestive of his bias, as well as responses from those both sympathetic and critical of Islamic history and theology
A look at Pecher's edit history will show that he has little regard for consensus, although almost in every instance, seeking consensus would have diverted the need for repeated reverts and outright edit warring. His selectivity in choosing material from texts and limiting his contribution exclusively to adding content that would be responded to negatively clearly violates WP:NPOV in that he deliberately ignores the need to avoid giving undue weight to his POV, and ignores the need to adopt a fair tone. In instances where he repeated and deliberately misrepresented texts, he violates WP:V in that his comments do not reflect the expressed content of his sources, and his substitution of ideas and words of the texts with his own violates WP:OR. The pattern of his edits to promote a single view violates WP:NOT in that his contribution and edit warring turns articles into propaganda.
Like Usher, he has been involved in the WP:Islam page, particularly The Muslim Guild, and has ‘encouraged’ Muslims to not participate in groups aimed at bringing more knowledge to the pool of editors on Islam-related topics. [136]
He also participated in the edit war over instruction on how members of Wikiproject Islam should behave. [137] Recall I’ve explained these ‘rules’ were unfounded and offensive to Muslims. [138] [139] [140]
He often uses books rather than online sources, and often edits to include opinions disguised as fact (see WP:NPOV distinction between fact and opinion). The distinction has been pointed out to him,quite some time ago, by another user in the past.[141][142].
Pecher typically prefers to use books instead of online sources. Online sources are much easier to verify when compared to books, and so many of his misinterpretations of texts go unchallenged by those unable or unwilling to get a copy of the books he uses in their hands. Nonetheless, the highly polarized bias of his edits has had many editors searching for the books he uses, and when they do secure the book, they've often expressed their observations of differences between the text and his interpretations of them. Some have implied that this cannot be attributed to error in understanding, but rather a deliberate intention to mislead. [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148][149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157], On Banu Nadir:[158][159] [160][161] User notes conflict in information:[162] [163]
User approaching Tom Harrison on Pecher's POV bias: [164]
Like Merzbow (my statements against him follow), Pecher employs the technique of excluding sources based on complaints on their reliability that are not rooted in written WP guidelines. [165] [166] [167].
WP:RS distinguishes between fact and opinion, and demands that opinions and facts that are disagreed on be attributed to their respective author. Unfortunately WP:V does not outline penalties for violating NPOV through the mischaracterization of opinion as fact, or of debatable fact as uncontested fact. Pecher frequently ‘advises’ others on WP regulations and guidelines, so it cannot be said he violates WP:RS out of ignorance. WP:NPOV has subsections on its application, notably “fair tone” and “undue weight”. Going back through Pecher’s contributions to Islam and Islam-related articles, you can see an obvious and absolute disregard for 'undue weight' and 'fair tone'. Like Timothy’s, the entirety of Pecher’s edit history shows this cherry-picking of the worst instances of Islamic history and misrepresentation of sources to push an harsh anti-Islamic POV.
Elaboration of one instance of bad-faith editing: This instance where I came in conflict with Pecher’s work, was in his edit to Dhimmi. [168] I noted the section “Marriage”, which implied as a matter of fact (distinction of fact from opinion according to WP:RS), that Muslim marriages were comparable to slavery. [169] Now this contradicts every Quranic verse and Hadith on the nature of marriage, which Muslims see as a partnership. I voiced this concern, and although the statement was sourced, I deleted it on the grounds that it violated WP:POV on the grounds that it gave undue weight to a view held by virtually 0% of the Muslim population. [[170]] [[171]] Certainly for a Muslim to see such a statement framed as fact on Wikipedia is offensive. I am not the first to take note of the offensive message implied. The text from which he inserted this content acknowledges that the comparison of marriage to slavery made supposedly by Muhammad was not a suggestion that the two should be similar, but an expression of criticism and repulsion to what was the common treatment of wives at his time. His use of the comparison was for the purpose of encouraging Muslim men to treat their wives well. An intellectually honest editor would point to this context. Merzbow limited his compromise to including the name of the author of the book inline, without changing the implied message of the words. Aminz went further to put the entirety of the message in context, giving cited references and explanation to the relevant Hadith. [[172]] Since then, Pecher has returned the offending paragraph to its original highly offensive form [173]
Additional evidence demonstrating his bias (content noted above not repeated)
His entire edit history, insofar as Islam-related topics are concerned, demonstrates his single-objective POV. Please see his edit history
Inflammatory sarcastic remark on Muhammad: [174][175]
Other users pointing to Pecher’s POV bias, “Islam-bashing” and incivility: [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181][182]
- Accused of being a "POV-pusher" by a User:TShilo12 on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for his contributions to Muhammad: [183] [184]
- Accused of deliberately misrepresenting source by leaving out contents of a quote in Mosque: [185] [186]
Muhammad (see above response to "POV-pushing"): [187]
Banu Nadir (talk page thread) :[188] [189] [190] [191]
- Misrepresentation of text which appears to be an outright lie: [192] [193]
- Lengthy challenge of Pecher's use of Norman Stillman's book, characterized as 'misrepresentation' by User:Publicola: [194] I ask a user I am yet unfamiliar with if the 'misrepresentation could be attributed to error, to which I get the response I would say it's too much to be a good-faith error. It looks like selective quotation, and in a few cases, outright misrepresentation, to me. [195] [196] Others: [197] (the edit in question is one of Pecher's) [198]
Battle of Khaybar: This is the talk page discussion on Battle of Khaybar. Here Pecher tries to push the point that the military forces of Muhammad committed a massacre on the defeated Jewish side, despite several other editors using various sources to question the validity of that claim. It is questionable whether or not Pecher's own source stated what he claims it did: [199]
- Better inflammatory than 'apologetic' (unsourced edit): [200]
Dispute between Pecher and other users on Persian Jews: [201] [202] [203]
Exclusion of source on frivilous grounds:
Dispute between Pecher and Bless Sins over a source: [204] Personal attack against Bless Sins : [205]
Deletes cited information claiming source unreliable. The same source is quoted elsewhere in the article: [206]
Deletes information that would provide context from Dhimmi : [207]
Dhimmi: Judith on impending edit war: [208] Extraordinarily high expectation from less polemic 'reliable sources';:[209] Edit summary on Dhimmi: [210] Deleting cited material that would have provided more NPOV: [211]
Mosque (see above for allegations of deliberately misquoting Bat Ye'or: [212], [213]
Collaboration with others sharing the same POV-bias. [214]
POV-biased and potentially inflammatory edit to Banu Qaynuqa: [215]
POV edits to Safiyya bint Huyayy, edit war: [216] [217][218] [219]
Defense of “Jihad Watch” (anti-Islamic hate site) by deleting cited and sourced review of it from CAIR: [220] [221]
Support for FairNBalanced's display of inflammatory images: [222]
Support for Category:People Killed on order of Muhammad:[223]
Support for: Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation: [224] Edit warring, ‘censorship’:[225]
Inflammatory/insensitive commentary by Pecher: Harassment over IbrahimFaisal’s userpage: [226] [227] [228] [229]
- Insults him on Talk:Dhimmi [230], Timothy Usher joins in: [231]
Incivility:[232] Attacks on User:Publicola on Talk:Banu Nadir: [233] [234] [235]
Vandalism on Islam to make a WP:POINT [236][237]
Suggests that Merzbow abide by WP:RS, not because of the need to follow policy, but because using questionable sources would give others the justification to use less polemic sources: [238]
Observations of his CONTINUING biased and disruptive editing well after the filing of this dispute Pecher apparently takes exception to Edward Said being referred to as a scholar: [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245]
[edit] Merzbow
My experience with this user is not quite extensive. I came to know of him through articles Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. I have had some considerable differences with several of his positions on his editing. He adopts several interesting tactics which in effect allows the use of polemic and politically charged sources as sources, often reflected in the article as if they were agreed-upon fact, while dismissing WP:RS's standards when a source provided may provide a less skewed bias. The usage of Bat Ye'or as a source is the most prominent example of this usage of the tactic. He sets ad hoc standards as to what constitutes "reliable sources", and refuses to explain what his standards are based on from with WP policy. On his attacks against me, I’ll let the facts speak. If you note the Dhimmi talk page, he adopts a uniformly condescending and insulting tone in how he addresses me. Perhaps it's my mistake that I didn't go from admin to admin seeking a block on those grounds. Please read the ANI threads provided thoroughly. I do believe his actions against me in regards to the warning template on my talk page was in bad faith- a competing editor should've forwarded allegations to an unbiased admin. He seems fluent in english, and yet what he saw as violating WP:NPA was not seen that way by anyone else. Here are his shortcomings as I see them:
User brings inflammatory comparison of Muslim marriages to slavery to Merzbow's attention. Merzbow 'changes his mind', and doesn't so much as attribute the opinion (which should be excluded anyway as giving undue weight to a single opinion): [246]
Abuse of the WP: NPA warning template, and subsequent use of WP: vandalism template to affect a block: [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252]
- Aminz’s response on the warning:
[253] ANI entry I submitted: [254]
Precedence for use of this tactic on User:Salman01:[255]
Conversation on initiating an ArbComm case, recognition that Wikipedia community wouldn’t support a ban: [256]
- Content dispute: Bat Ye’or:
On Dhimmi: See talk page disputes: [257] [258] Acknowleges that Bat Ye'or is a poor source after it had been contested by several users: [259] [260]
Apparent momentary disregard for the WP:RS “guideline: [261] His justification is hardly cogent; see the number of sources cited on Dhimmi, an article that was already biased towards the Western view. These are the numbers as to sources used at the time those comments were made: Of 121 instances where sources were cited, 40 times the source was Bat Ye'or. 43 times it was Bernard Lewis. 22 times Norman Stillman. 8 times Friedman. 8 times Al Mawardi.
Bat Ye'or. In case you are unfamiliar with her, she's a woman who had been dismissed by several scholars as being a polemicist. When she spoke at Georgetown University, many of her Jewish audience walked out in the middle of her talk. Her husband, who works with her on her books dismissed that event by saying that the Jewish students were pressurized by the Muslim students and reduced to dhimmis. [262] Her works have been dismissed as polemics by notable scholars such as Bernard Lewis In light of the presence of so many authors one could refer to for information, the use of her polemics as if they'd constitute a reliable source was unacceptable.
Later, when I add references that include opendemocracy.net, and an article on Beliefnet.com, he suddenly adopts a very strict implementation of WP:RS.. [263] [264] I personally checked on the academic qualifications of the author of the opendemocracy.net article, as did Aminz who generally agrees with Merzbow without hesitation. [265] Beliefnet has been positively reviewed by the Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, and Time Magazine. [266] It is a suggested website by renowned author (and critic of Islam) Irshad Manji. Both sources far more reliable than Bat Ye'or. Yet Merzbow adopted tones of ridicule in response to my use of those sources, while he defended the use of Bat Ye'or. [267]
Removal of sourced material that would have provided context and neutrality: [271] [272]
Marzbow's 'research' presented on the Dhimmi Talk Page suggesting I made no contribution to the article:[273] My response:[274] In my opinion, his attempt to show my 'lack of contribution' to the article was both incivil and amounted to a personal attack.
Editing Dhimmi to re-add information that violates WP:NPOV on undue weight grounds. [275]
[edit] Use of the powers of certain admins to deal with situations ( Tom Harrison)
Unfortunately I find a few disturbing patterns in how Timothy Usher and Pecher pleads to certain admins to get their way.For both Timothy Usher and Pecher, Tom Harrison apparently has been the go-to guy both for dealing with content disputes, affecting blocks and evading blocks.
T Usher asking User:Tom harrison to affect a block on a user: [276] [277] [278]
Encouraging Tom Harrison to join in the Wikiproject Islam conflict: [281]
Pecher using Tom Harrison to avoid a 3RR block: [283] Pleading that Tom Harrison unblock Timothy Usher: [284] That another user's block be reviewed: [285]
On my id:[286]
[edit] In My Own Defense:
Firstly, on Hypnosadist taking offense...Consider his statements that I was responding to:[287]
The logical conclusion you might derive about me, all this being said, is that in this conflict I am merely the mirror image of those I’m in dispute against- a POV warrior arguing from the “Islamic” side. However if you note my contributions to articles like Hizb ut-Tahrir, Shariah, Jihad and Islamism, you will find I don’t hold back in exposing criticisms of Islam, and particularly Islamism, where criticisms are lacking. [288] [289] [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] My tone regarding the Islamic topics could be seen as critical at times, at time sympathetic. I’ve always responded by editing to expand on what was lacking. In Hizb Ut-Tahrir, what was lacking was all the known evidence that showed their movement would bring about insulated Islamic states without regards for human rights in the modern sense. In Islamism, what was missing was evidence that the terminology has gained widespread usage, even amongst Muslims. In Dhimmi, Criticism of Islam, Banu Nadir, and a host of other Islam-related articles, what’s missing is objectivity, respect for the subject matter, context, and neutrality. I do believe Wikipedia must reflect criticisms, but it must do so respecting due proportionality. Jimbo Wales understood this, as the sections on “fairness of tone” and “undue weight” in WP:NPOV show. Timothy User, Pecher, and to a lesser extent Merzbow, have all worked to turn articles that should have been about history into articles that reflect nothing but the most offensive content their sources have to offer. This, I take strong exception to.
In response to this,I’ve filed 3 RFCs seeking unbiased and uninvested editors to get involved, I’ve gone to the IRC channels and asked for reviews of the articles. I’ve urged members of WP:Islam to contribute with their knowledge, and Timothy Usher accused me of ‘spamming’. I’ve been harsh in my responses to Merzbow, but I haven’t addressed him in such a way that would violate WP:NPA. As such, I have made no violation against him that justifies him seeking these very 'final' means against me, save content disputes where I still stand on by my positions.Given his selectivity in deciding when a source is ‘reliable’ or not, and his habit of making judgments without giving corresponding sources from actual WP policy, I’d argue his actions are also questionable. Given that nobody stood up to apply NPOV on these articles, my general attitude of skepticism relative to Wikipedia is also reasonable. This isn’t incivility on my part, its outrage. I don’t expect leniency for my actions, and I won’t hold any negative feelings for whatever penalty you apply. I do ask that you respect that my actions were in response to the realities here.
[edit] My point-by-point response to Merzbow’s list
Many of the points Merzbow raised include violations I am actually guilty of, contributions that do not contain violations in any sense, and instances where (according to WP policy) I am actually correct relative to the person I am responding to. He has included exerpts from heated dialogues where my harsh comment was in response to another harsh comment, and though they suggest I can be rude at times, it is important to consider context.
Wikipedia as battleground, conspiracy theories
Merzbow’s list contains facts, misunderstandings, and faulty allegations. I won’t argue that a proportion of his allegations are factual. This was drafted before his addition of the timestamp. Since the text is the same, I’m keeping this as is. To compare my response to his list, open two pages, one with his list prior to the addition of the timestamps, and this list. . [2] is true. [3] My attempt at bringing people with knowledge of Islam to articles where the Muslim perspective was absent. [4], [5] A heated criticism that doesn’t violate WP policy. [6],[7] heated but accurate observations on my part. [8] Addressed in my counter case against Usher, Pecher and Merzbow. Offensive statements against race, religion, and nationality [10] My edits were being deleted despite bringing a more NPOV and being thoroughly cited. [11] Not violation of WP policy. [12] Will explain elaborately following this. [13] Heated remark, not violation of WP policy. [14] The guy I’m responding to accused Muhammad of being a pedophile, deriving 'erotic' imagery from a Hadith where no such thing was suggest. I responded heatedly with a 'tit-for-tat'. Not violation of WP policy. [15] Part of my “Wikiharakiri”. Stupid remark I’m sure to pay for.
Acknowledges he knows why he gets blocked [18] Sad but true. [19] [20] Heated remark after being blocked for what I felt frivolous reasons. 20 explains 19.No contest.
[21] To be honest, I think it’s a bloody good point. I was blocked ‘indefinitely’ for using the word bigot, the same admin felt a 1 week block on FairNBalanced was too much although he posted terribly offensive images on his user page, then joined WikiProject:Islam to make his offensive gesture visible to the Muslim community here.
Personal attacks on admin Celestianpower [22]-[[26] Celestianpower blocked me for 3RR, although I had made the 4th edit after the 24th hour. No warnings, no comments; I had no awareness of the person until the block. Effectively, he blocked me although WP policy didn’t recognize his reason for applying the block. I disagreed with the POV accusation as well- comments were made cited by sources that didn't support the statements. His block was overturned by another admin when I visited the IRC chatroom and asked for it to be reviewed. Admittedly not an excuse for making personal attacks.
Miscellaneous incivility and attacks as Amibidhrohi
[27] What ever happened to having a sense of humor? Does not violate WP policy. [28] I provided 7 sources where people who reviewed Ann Coulter’s work used the word ‘racist’ to describe her. Even then, I couldn’t use the sub-heading “allegations of racism”. Heated discussion. [29],[30] [31] No contest. Shouldn’t have said that. Didn’t read WP:NPA by that time. Of course, I was attacking a group, so it’s not exactly personal.[32], [33],[34], [35] Hamas is hopelessly biased. Very pro-Israel/American perspective. I certainly don't agree with their ideology or agenda, but the article doesn't read like an encyclopedia entry, it reads like a Fox News report. Repeated deletions of all sourced-but-not-Western views.
Miscellaneous incivility and attacks as His excellency [36] Mean but true. No contest. [37] Timothy Usher, nuff said. [38] Relative to Timothy Usher’s changes to WP:Islam. Sharing what I knew about his sour opinion of Muhammad, and what that suggested of his objectives in WP:Islam. [39] Save the ‘butt buddy’ phrase, rest seems pretty reasonable to me. [40] Comment with someone I have a common understanding with, doesn’t violate WP policy; wasn't directed against him. [41] I was blocked indefinitely for calling Timothy Usher a bigot, and told I would only be unblocked if I promised Tom Harrison I would be good. I found this humiliating, and preferred rather to prove Timothy Usher’s own words suggest the term ‘bigot’ is an appropriate English word describing what he in fact is. [42],[43] Wise words if I do say so myself. Responses to comments made to me, none violate WP policy. [44] harsh but not unfounded commentary. [45] On Talk:Dhimmi, under mentioned heading, Merzbow decides to comment on my meager contribution to the article. I pointed out that he leaves my contributions that could be considered positive, out. Valid pbservation. [46] reasonable response. I was blocked for filing an AFD after it became clear to me that the article was hopelessly single-POV.
[47] In response to my finding the “Muslim marriage is slavery” paragraph, which Merzbow would later protect even though I mention it violates the 'undue weight' clause of WP:NPOV.
[48] Not meant to be as offensive as it seems. In the same diff, read the comment I’m responding to: I’m being told that Wikipedia is pro-West biased because it was invented in the West by an American man named Jimbo Wales. As an invention from the West, it’s apparently a gift for myself and ‘my children’ to learn from. I found that insulting, and merely implied that we non-westerners can do some teaching too. His comment sought to justify a bias, and so I responded to the comment by stating I "and my children" could teach him on intellectual honesty.I merely gave a proportional response, suggesting I’m not the one who needs learning.
Note: Much of the above comments comments were made in frustration, I deleted them myself: [296]
Actions after ArbComm case filed [49] – [52] There’s only so much a man can take. Even I’m surprised I didn’t get a permanent block. [53] You wouldn’t notice it in text, but I was really putting the emphasis on “not that I’d punch him in the face”.
Drives good editors from Wikipedia [54]-[56] I regret the comment. No contest.
Evidence he is aware of the rules [57] Yes, I’m aware of the rules. Admittedly I wasn't aware of some rules until later on. The rigid definitions of WP:NPA for example, I didn't know well until fairly recently.
Evidence he is contemptuous of WP:V, WP:RS [58] Friendly discussion that this focus on events centuries ago isn’t necessarily productive. Commentary on whether or not time spent working on these articles is indeed worthwhile as a hobby. Has nothing to do with WP:policy. Not a commentary on how articles should be produced.
Professor Friedmann edit war [59]-[62] ], [64] My action was actually correct according to WP:NPOV :’’’ “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.” ‘’’ [65] Merzbow misread/Misrepresented my statement. I didn’t say I edited anything, I checked the edit history and found Pecher introduced the paragraph. The paragraph frames ‘Muslim marriage is slavery’ in a tone that suggests this is accepted fact. It clearly isn’t. Merzbow does improve this to a very small degree, as it still suggests the same message. Aminz improves the paragraph to provide context of Friedmann’s source, mentioned in his own book. Pecher has since reverted it to his previous “matter of fact” form which violates NPOV, as well as misrepresents the content.
Disruption via bogus AfD to prove a point [66],[67] Posted AFD in good faith. The article remained as is, with a little banner on top- no real disruption at all to the article and work on it. I was blocked (again) in part for filing this AFD. The text on the WP:AFD page states: All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Text that does not conform to all four policies is not allowed in the main namespace. As Dhimmi grossly violated WP:NPOV and all other attempts at fixing the problem had failed, I posted the AFD. I knew little of AFDs at the time; I certainly didn't know that I could be blocked for filing one or that filing it could be understood as 'disruption'. From previous AFD proceedings I had read, I know people have commented and suggested ‘rewrites’. If I had an 'ulterior motive', my ulterior motive was that the AFD would draw attention to the quality of the article. I wasn’t ‘proving a point’, as Merzbow alleges.
Proxy personal attacks on (non-Wikipedia) opponents via unreliable sources [69]-[71] Content dispute. Editors are very protective of the right to portray Muhammad as a murderer, but are defensive when it comes to mentioning sourced criticisms against “critics of Islam”. The article in which this discussion is happening is “Criticism of Islam”. I believe still that the theme can, and in the name of POV should, include third party verifiable comments and criticisms voiced regarding those critics on whose works the article is mostly based. I felt (and still feel) the attitude that criticism of Muhammad should be presented and expanded to expose every faced of alleged weaknesses in his character should be held as admirable, while criticisms of vocal critics should be censored. Call me crazy.
Inaccurate opinion sourced as fact
[72], [73] I cited what was a fairly well written editorial piece from a well-known source. Merzbow alleges beliefnet.com is not a credible source, while I know it to be fairly popular. Being as we’re the only two to comment on the source, there’s no consensus on the reliability. Beliefnet.com claims it has received positive reviews from the Washington Times, and Chicago Tribune and BusinessWeek.com. I felt his gripe with this source was disingenuous, but I cannot know for sure. [297]
[75] Merzbow alleges Opendemocracy.net is not a usable source, but provides no WP policy that would justify its exclusion. The author of the article is educated in the field, more so than Bat Ye’or whose work makes a up for a huge percentage of the article content. I am familiar with this website and find it reliable to an academically reliable degree. Merzbow removed contents wrongly.
Quote-dumping and lack of sourcing
[77]-[79] These quotes are discussed at length on the talk page, and were suggested by Aminz. Nobody took exception to them, and so I introduced them into the articles. A good faith edit which Merzbow labels as ‘quote dumping’.
[edit] Additional notes
I notice Merzbow patting himself on the back for his contribution towards reducing the proportion of the text in Dhimmi originating from Bat Ye'or's polemics. A look at the Dhimmi talk page shows it was I who brought the issue of the tilt of the article. Until recently, over 40 of the 114 sources on which the article was based came directly from Bat Ye'or's work, framed as fact and not as opinion. Bat Ye'or's work is condemned by virtually every respected scholar and denounced by all Muslims who know of her. She is however popular with websites such as Dhimmiwatch.com, JihadWatch.com, and fellow polemicists such as Daniel Pipes and Robert Spencer. Her views do not reflect the opinions of broader scholarship (some of which mocks her), and therefore according to WP:NPOV, her work should be excluded entirely. Even now not all her views are attributed to her save for the little blue citation links. All Merzbow is doing is 'compromizing' where WP:NPOV (on 'undue weight' and 'fair tone' grounds) states there should be no compromise. See [298][299].
In response to Publicola's evidences: His comments on Pecher's and Timothy Usher's harassments and their unwillingness to accept mediation on their involvements in content disputes are both relevant and telling. I disagree with his assessment on the Wikiproject Judaism v Wikiproject Islam theory though. Of the 88 members of Wikiproject Judaism, only 6 I am familiar with as trouble makers on Islam-related articles. Pecher and Merzbow aren't amongst those members; Timothy Usher is, but he's also a member of Wikiproject Christianity and Wikiproject Islam. The Wikiproject:Judaism talk page notes an annoyance of at least a few of its membership with Pecher's 'misrepresentation' of Norman Stillman's book on Muhammad, as well as what appears to be Timothy Usher's altering of their project page without consensus. [300] [301] [302] His Excellency... 17:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
