Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

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. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Evidence presented by Merzbow 1.1 Personal attacks, harrassment, and incivility 1.2 Edit warring, disruption, and inability to compromise 1.3 Defense against accusations of POV editing 1.4 Defense against accusations of misuse of warning templates 2 Evidence presented by Raphael1 2.1 Merzbow engages in tendentious editing 3 Evidence presented by Bishonen 3.1 His excellency has been subject to harsh blocks 3.2 His excellency is a valuable contributor 3.3 Timothy Usher has poisoned the well. Example: Bishonen 3.4 Addendum, a link to complement Zora: "Facing a gang all alone" 4 Evidence presented by User:His excellency 4.1 Timothy Usher 4.2 Pecher 4.3 Merzbow 4.4 Use of the powers of certain admins to deal with situations ( Tom Harrison) 4.5 In My Own Defense: 4.6 My point-by-point response to Merzbow’s list 4.7 Additional notes 5 Evidence presented by Itsmejudith 5.1 Addendum 6 Evidence presented by Hypnosadist 7 Evidence presented by Tom Harrison 8 Evidence presented by GRBerry 9 Evidence presented by Publicola 9.1 Personal attack by Pecher 9.2 Pecher and Timothy Usher refuse to participate in Banu Nadir mediation 9.3 The real problem is that POV-pushing Jews outnumber, outrank, and out-collaborate POV-pushing Muslims on Wikipedia 9.3.1 Comment after feedback: is this really evidence? 9.3.2 Recommendation 10 Evidence presented by Aminz 10.1 Pecher 10.1.1 Addendum 10.1.2 Addendum II 10.1.3 Addendum III 10.2 Timothy Usher 10.3 Merzbow 10.4 His Excellency 11 Evidence presented by Zora 12 Evidence presented by BhaiSaab 13 Evidence presented by Timothy Usher 14 Evidence presented by Pecher 15 Evidence presented by Andjam

[edit] Evidence presented by Merzbow

[edit] Personal attacks, harrassment, and incivility

Applicable policies and guidelines: WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:HAR, WP:CIVIL

The crux of this ArbComm case is the accusation of incivility towards His excellency. His Wikipedia career has been marked by a stream of incivility (punctuated by bona-fide personal attacks) towards editors (and admins) he has issues with. Additionally, he has adopted an uncompromising "us-vs-them" view of Wikipedia, and consistently sees this project as a war between anti-Islamic forces and him and his allies (he now edits almost exclusively on the Islam-related articles). This apparently relieves him of the need to assume good faith on the part of any of the editors he believes fall into the former category. Furthermore, he has been blocked numerous times and coached numerous times, but has not changed his ways at all.

(The following diffs are presented in roughly chronological order within each section. This is by no means an exhaustive list.)

Wikipedia as battleground, conspiracy theories

• 2006-05-19 07:45:08 - "Islam-bashing on Wikipedia - There's a pretty well-organized group (groups?) of people here who seek to defame Islam every chance they get"
• 2006-06-03 15:13:25 - "Articles relating to Islam and Muslims, directly or indirectly, have been systematically subject to these group attacks."
• 2006-06-27 15:42:14 - "Wikipedia has become a soapbox for the Islamophobes, with the consent of the larger Wikipedia community. Muslims should not participate in this."
• 2006-06-27 22:32:34 - "Nerdy-but-virulent islamophobes who didn't have the guts to go to war are playing games here. You know the cliche about wrestling with pigs. "You'll get dirty and the pig likes it". Well, it's something like that.It's not worth the mud."
• 2006-06-27 23:37:29 - "The Pechers and Merzbows and Timothy Ushers can have it all. It's a worthless waste of time to expect any fair representation of the Muslim view or anything sympathetic to it. You folks can devote your time to what you hate. You're wasting your lives."
• 2006-07-07 21:23:00 - "There's absolutely nothing in the realm of good faith in the works of any of the editors participating in the Islam-related articles."
• 2006-07-08 10:41:51 - "the non-Muslims being drawn to the Islamic articles right now, with perhaps 1 or two exceptions, are those who are rabidly hateful of the religion and those who follow it"
• 2006-07-08 20:01:53 - "Merzbow and Pecher and Timothy Usher and Aminz don't know a thing about Islam, and yet they dominate the Islam articles. They've absorbed propaganda and spout their hate speech here. Fuck it, man. They're not worth my time and effort."

Offensive statements against race, religion, and nationality

• 2006-05-13 08:35:01 - "I've tried 'playing by the rules'. The ideologues here DELETE information that present sides to the issue other than what they support.... The other editors here are disingenuous in claiming to be open to dialogue. These people have no real knowlege about the region or its history. Probably stupid Americans who can't diffrentiate between opinion and knowlege."
• 2006-05-12 18:29:09 - "I know everything; all that WP: garbage. I know it's selectively enforced depending on what view is most popular with the predominantly ango admins." (ango here almost certainly is a typo for anglo)
• 2006-06-06 21:12:05 - "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots..."
• 2006-06-18 19:11:00 - "You're a fool to trust an anglo to do anything other than stab you in the back. As the Quran clearly tells you, you should not put yourself in a situation where you are reliant on them, in even the smallest way, on their consideration. Don't associate with them; don't work with them; don't make your actions (and in this case, words) subject to their review."
• 2006-06-24 11:57:58 - "Jesus? Jesus was a coward. He spoke of swords often enough, and he demonstrated a hatred of non-Jews (comparing them to pigs and dogs) and even of Jews ('an incestuous eneration')... Don't compare Muhammad to Jesus."
• 2006-07-09 15:20:58 - "Telling you man, those kikes think of everything. :)" (he left this comment up for a very short time, thankfully)

Acknowledges he knows why he gets blocked

• 2006-01-15 12:07:49 - "Congratulations. Finally a block on actual grounds. No contest."
• 2006-05-12 19:36:48 - "I'll try not to make personal attacks, but given the kind of people here, it's hard to be sincere but not condescending... I spell all this out knowing your mind won't comprehend it..."
• 2006-05-14 21:36:19 - "...charlatans like you are trying to create a propaganda page... As for personal attacks, I'm sorry but I have no respect for the likes of you... I say what I feel, and if you feel that constitutes a personal attack, well..."
• 2006-06-18 18:08:12 - "For god's sake, fuck off... At best, you're stupid, at worst you're both stupid and a hypocrite. And yes, that's a personal attack."
• 2006-06-18 21:17:58 - "Earlier remarks were made in frustration, and since it's said offending comments can be removed, I'll remove them from here... The fact that my mere accusation that Timothy Usher is a bigot, a statement which I do and will stand by..."
• 2006-06-19 13:04:18 - "In my instance, my offense was saying that Timothy Usher was a practicing bigot..."

Personal attacks on admin Celestianpower

• 2006-01-14 10:05:52 - "I do stand by my statement that Celestianpower is incompetent. That's my good-faith interpretation of how this all worked out."
• 2006-01-14 15:57:04 - "With every reply you seem less and less intelligent. No wonder you prefer silence."
• 2006-01-14 16:32:40 - "I sincerely feel you're not up to being an admin on wikipedia. I don't even feel you'd make a good editor on articles. From the limited experience I've had with how you do your little job here, I feel you're unintelligent and that you're impulsive."
• 2006-01-15 08:56:05 - "You're too underqualified to undertake anything of an intellectual or scholarly nature. Wikipedia is worse off having the likes of you as an admin."
• 2006-01-14 14:42:10 - "What the fuck is wrong with you, you witless retard?... You're fucking useless." - (excerpted from an email from H.E. to Celestianpower)

Miscellaneous incivility and attacks as Amibidhrohi

• 2006-02-23 15:00:33 - "Is Wikipedia the place where the geeks who got beaten up in Highschool come to finally role-play as bullies?"
• 2006-02-23 20:03:39 - "For Christ's sake, buzz off. Why isn't there a WP:Competence? Two thirds of the editors here are either severely biased or mentally disabled (out of deference to [WP:CIVIL] [WP:NPA] and [WP:Be-A-Pussy] I won't call them retarded), and it seems that it's from amongst their rank that admins are selected."
• 2006-02-24 11:15:41 - "And let right-wing devotees like you run the show?"
• 2006-03-29 10:17:56 - "The fact that you're an apologist for Ann's bigotry doesn't itself justify exclusion of the use of the word when obviously appropriate."
• 2006-05-12 19:41:40 - "As long as you right-winger pro-Israel rednecks are using WP to push your propaganda, I'd rather take a block or a ban then put up with your garbage."
• 2006-05-15 12:18:34 - "So long as what I'm 'disrupting' is your pro-Israeli propaganda nonsense, I'm happy... Slimevirgin is as much a party to this POV pushing as the other zionists here."
• 2006-05-16 20:12:40 - "To assume good faith on your part would be blindness... Sorry, but I have absolutely no respect for the likes of you and I'd rather not pretend to acknowlege you as an equal when you're clearly not"
• 2006-05-17 07:49:53 - "I'd by lying if I said I only started questioning your education and rationality now. Your reading skills are certainly lacking if you're making these assertions while being blind to the points I actually raise"
• 2006-05-17 10:23:59 - "Even with the mentally retarded I have limits to my patience. For the last time, get it into your head"

Miscellaneous incivility and attacks as His excellency

• 2006-06-16 15:12:34 - "I never posted images celebrating torture the way that bigot friend of yours did."
• 2006-06-17 20:31:06 - "I don't want to violate WP:Civil by calling you a hypocrite, but the dictionary gives me few other words with more flattering tones."
• 2006-06-18 10:27:26 - "In that context, it is also fair to point out his own statements that show him to be a devout and practicing bigot"
• 2006-06-18 11:31:58 - "His butt buddy, Tom Harrison's talk page is little more than a register for the accused bigot to post his never-ending complaints and charges"
• 2006-06-18 21:55:45 - "Don't talk to me about 'civil' when hypocrites apply these double standards."
• 2006-06-18 22:47:39 - "My charge that Timothy Usher is in fact a bigot"
• 2006-06-19 08:23:48 - "The more you lecture me on civility, the more I'm inclined to believe you lack understand of what civility is."
• 2006-06-21 16:48:37 - "Your angst would be better made use of if you'd sign up to go to Iraq and fight with your fellow war criminals."
• 2006-06-26 15:34:17 - "You're being disengenuous, as always..."
• 2006-06-28 09:59:22 - "I have made solid observations on Merzbow's work, as I have of Timothy Usher's works and Pecher. Their work is effectively POV-driven vandalism that is aimed at turning Wikipedia Islam-related articles into indictments against Muslims and Islamic history."
• 2006-06-29 00:15:30 - "I don't assume good faith of people like Merzbow or Pecher or Timothy Usher..."
• 2006-07-06 22:20:46 - "I'm merely suggesting that a level amount of skepticism be directed at all entries, regardless of who inserts them. I've been familiar with your work long enough to know not to bother directing the same suggestion to you."
• 2006-07-07 15:57:33 - "If anything, it seems I and 'my children' need to work here to teach you a thing or two, particularly on the topic of intellectual honesty, which you're demonstrating here you know nothing about."

Actions after ArbComm case filed

• 2006-07-08 19:55:36 - "You fuckers say NPOV is non-negotiable, even if consensus goes against it. REALLY? Prove it... Percher and Timothy Usher and the honorable members of ArbComm can suck my dick"
• 2006-07-08 19:47:17 - "Take your Arbcomm case and shove it up your ass."
• 2006-07-09 15:16:38 - "Put the block back in place. A year, permanent, fuck if I care."
• 2006-07-09 15:33:07 - "Merzbow is a dick."
• 2006-07-09 23:38:30 - "Part of the appeal for the Timothy Ushers of this world for this Wikipedia thing is probably that they can make these attacks on peoples and cultures and not worry about getting punched in the face. Not that I'd punch him in the face, of course.That'd be a personal attack. That's not to say that if someone else did, I wouldn't point and laugh."

Drives good editors from Wikipedia

• 2006-07-08 19:40:41 - "And Aminz is the Muslim to perch on your shoulder so you feel less guilty for being a bigot"
• 2006-07-08 23:55:23 - "Aminz, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here."
• 2006-07-09 00:37:26 - Aminz' first and last post afterward is this, where he decides to leave Wikipedia for some undetermined period of time

Wikiharikari #2, apparently

• 2006-08-14 16:43:27 - "Fuck it. I made a bloody mistake even thinking these clowns had an ounce of crediblity. Such a waste of time."
• 2006-08-14 17:05:30 - "You're an imbecile"
• 2006-08-14 17:10:54 - "What are you complaining about, you crybaby - You're a Jew, for Yaweh's sake. The administrators here wouldn't dream of holding you accountable for anything you do."
• 2006-08-14T17:46:36 - "I do feel Timothy Usher is a bigot. I do feel that Jews are screwing up the planet (though admittedly Muslims, by far, surpass the Jews in their capacity to destroy things)."
• 2006-08-14T17:37:03 - "Jimbo, please take a break from patting yourself on the back and look around. Wikipedia is being used to push propaganda and offensive hate rhetoric... you're likely to be sued for it in the near future."

[edit] Edit warring, disruption, and inability to compromise

Applicable policies and guidelines: WP:3RR, WP:CON, WP:EQ, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV

H.E. is rarely willing to compromise on his edits. When one of his edits is reverted or revised, he will frequently post hyperbolic screeds on article talk about how other editors are irredeemingly POV (some examples in the above section also). He removes well-sourced material and continues to revert until it's clear he isn't going to get his way. Attempts by other editors to explain why he's wrong fall on deaf ears, and are met with incivility, an uncompromising stance, and distortion of the truth. Furthermore, his additive contributions to article space are frequently POV and inappropriately sourced.

(Earlier in his Wikipedia career as Amibidhrohi, H.E. was blocked several times for 3RR violations, which I do not analyze here. He no longer violates 3RR but still edit wars against consensus, as the below will show.)

Evidence he is aware of the rules

• 2006-06-26 09:13:35 - "Please do not remove content that are supported by sources... We all have our 'points of view', but we need to be objective when editing articles and put personal biases aside."

Evidence he is contemptuous of WP:V, WP:RS

• 2006-06-27 22:08:10 - "I'm not spending time buying books to correct this Wikipedia nonsense... It's a waste of time. It's utterly useless."

Professor Friedmann edit war

• 2006-07-06 14:21:37 (reversions [2] [3] [4]) - removes material from a rock-solid source (book by a Professor Freidmann) against consensus
• 2006-07-06 09:22:16 - here H.E. misattributes the Friedmann material to Bat Ye'or
• 2006-07-06 19:36:29 - here H.E. claims that this material should be censored because it is a view "held by almost 0% of the Muslim population" (irrelevant because it's a historical view, and OR anyways)
• 2006-07-08 09:51:23 - here H.E. is incivil to Pecher and disingenuously claims he "edited" Pecher's Friedmann material when in fact he had simply removed it (4 times). I in fact was the one who had edited and improved it here and here

Disruption via bogus AfD to prove a point

• 2006-06-27 07:46:56 - unsuccessfully tries to remove a large swath of properly sourced material from scholars against consensus
• [5] - shortly afterward, he nominates Dhimmi for deletion in bad faith. This is obviously so because he cites WP:NPOV as a basis for deletion, when in fact it is not, and responds with attacks against admins when told otherwise (see this short thread [6] - "How did you become an admin? Your rhetoric is ridiculous.")

Proxy personal attacks on (non-Wikipedia) opponents via unreliable sources

• 2006-07-07 14:34:16 (reversion [7]) - adds material sourced from inconsequential web magazines that contain personal attacks against alleged critics of Islam (like "Muslim-basher" used to describe one such person)
• 2006-07-08 12:12:04 - responds on talk with incivility after being reverted ("apparently we can have polemics masquerading as fact here, thanks to a few editors here", "I see your contributions in Wikipedia reflect the same kind of 'cherry picking'...")

Inaccurate opinion sourced as fact

• 2006-06-23 20:25:19 (reversion [8]) - cites an opinion article from "belief.net", a non-notable web magazine and blog, for inaccurate historical statements about Roman Catholic Popes, and states them as fact

Unreliable sources in a history article

• 2006-06-27 07:01:12 (reversion [9]) - here he adds material to Dhimmi, a history article, sourced to a non-notable writer at a non-notable web magazine
• 2006-06-27 21:51:52 - responds with incivility and hyperbole after having this mentioned to him, saying that "No other editor here has been made obligated to argue the validity of a source on introducing it" despite months of talk page archives showing otherwise, and stating that "everything here is offensive"

Quote-dumping and lack of sourcing

• 2006-06-26 08:24:10 (reversions [10] [11]) - dumps quotes indiscriminantly in violation of WP:NOT and doesn't source them properly

[edit] Defense against accusations of POV editing

I have been accused of POV editing by H.E. The charge is absurd. I take pains to be fair and believe I am a very valuable editor, and I present my edit history at Criticism of Islam as an example. Over the past two months, I have laboriously revised this article with the help of Aminz, who is a Muslim. I would take a section and rewrite it with high-quality sources, and dedicate at least 50% of each section to defenses against a particular criticism. (For example, see [12]). Aminz would then usually add his own changes or make suggestions, which we would compromise on. This process can be seen taking place many times on the article's talk page. (For example, see [13]).

In Dhimmi, I was instrumental in forging a compromise on the controversial Bat Ye'or material by agreeing that it should be de-emphasized where appropriate (see [14]). (Editors had been arguing over whether she is a reliable source or not for a while.) I then proceeded to clean up much of her material as promised (see the bottom 20 or so edit histories by me at this link: [15]).

I choose to work on the Islam articles not to push a POV but to help bring well-sourced material on all sides of the subject to a broad audience. The subject of Islam is one that is controversial in today's world and at the same time reliable information about it is hard to come by. Unfortunately most links about Islam one will find on the web come from either dedicated anti-Islam or pro-Islam activist sites.

Addendum to address Raphael1's charge of tendentious editing

Raphael1's accusation is puzzling on several levels. First, I stand by my position that it is not reasonable to source attacks on the integrity of living persons (such as accusations of being "anti-Islam" and showing "intellectual dishonesty" [16] and earlier "Muslim-basher" [17]) from non-notable people writing on non-notable web magazines or blogs. (CAIR might be notable enough, but the other two sources certainly aren't). Second, Raphael1 seems not to be arguing against this position per se, but appears to be claiming that if an article already contains some unreliable sources he is justified in adding even more (see this exchange: [18], [19], [20]). Not only is this WP:POINT, it is especially unjustified given the clear ongoing work on Criticism of Islam over the past two months to improve sourcing. I encourage Raphael1 to familiarize himself with the evolution of the article before proclaiming a willingness to re-introduce inferior sourcing. - Merzbow 02:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defense against accusations of misuse of warning templates

I believe I was acting in good faith recently by placing a personal-attack warning on H.E.'s talk page, and then following up with wr3 and wr4 vandalism templates when he removed them. (See this ANI discussion for the background: [21]) I posted the warning myself because the instructions on WP:PAIN explicitly say that this should be done before reporting, and at least one of the diffs I warned for was unambiguously a personal attack according to my current reading of WP:NPA (see [22]). Nevertheless, I admit the possibility that I may have acted in haste. Perhaps I should have asked another editor to issue the warning due to my pre-existing conflict with this user.

[edit] Evidence presented by Raphael1

[edit] Merzbow engages in tendentious editing

Merzbow repeatedly removed valid criticism on the critics, who get room on Criticism of Islam, claiming that the sources are non-notable.[23][24] This is especially questionable as he has no problem with the primary source for this article (11 references), which is the Catholic Encyclopedia (here's an example article), which is a source dating back to 1913, when the Catholic church was accompaning colonialism with vigorous Christianizations i.e. in Africa (see [25]). Raphael1 19:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Bishonen

[edit] His excellency has been subject to harsh blocks

The block log for the earlier Amibidhrohi account shows many 3RR vios in the past. HE has repented of those and does so no more.

June 6-7, 2006, HE was blocked for 3RR by Tom Harrison, who later extended the block to 1 week for "personal attacks and harassment" while blocked. This seems a draconian measure to me. Going by HE's talkpage at the time, Pecher and TU complained to Tom that HE, while blocked, was harassing TU on his, HE's, talkpage User talk:Amibidhrohi. This pattern seems to be usual with HE's blocks; it doesn't apparently occur to people that it's rather easy to not be harassed by someone who's confined to his own talkpage. Vicious-circle serial blocking of a user for getting angry at being blocked may be necessary in some cases, but I think it should always be used with caution. The descent of a block is a shock, and it's not a good time to engage a user in conversation and then scrutinize his posts for lapses from the highest standards of civility. Anyway, please see if this looks like personal attacks and harassment in the first place. Speaking for myself, and without prejudice to Tom (as I don't know if other civility issues were being included in the sanction), I don't think so, and if I'd been the blocking admin and had thought so, I would have been more likely to admonish HE to stop it, then ask TU to ignore him and walk away, then consider protecting User talk:Amibidhrohi, and only if none of that worked would I have considered lengthening the block (not to a whole week).

June 18 2006 Tom Harrison blocks HE indefinitely for a "calculated personal attack" and posts on ANI for review. (I won't weigh down the following account with diffs, as all quotes are from this same ANI thread.) Responses vary from "This block was a good call" (User:Netscott) to "Nonsense! No one can be blocked indefinitely for a personal attack — at least not according to Wikipedia policy" (Geogre). After checking out some quarrelsome dialogue between HE and the user putatively attacked by him, Timothy Usher, I urge Tom to unblock as I find the (obviously long-standing) conflict between the two to be "a matter of strong differences of opinion and a rather hostile tone (the presumed victim giving as good as he gets) rather than of His Excellency making any extreme personal attacks". I shorten the block to a compromise sanction for angry posts — 3 days. Please see my posts in this thread for a full rationale for this action. A couple of hours later, HE removed most of the fiery comments from his page, with the edit summary "Removing heated remarks made in frustration". (Merzbow's evidence section above contains several quotes from these comments; I think a little context would have been helpful.) That's not to say I want to be taken as excusing, on any provocation, such posts as "butt buddy". I'd be surprised if HE excuses it himself.

June 29: Woohookitty blocks HE for one week for personal attacks and disruption since his last block, and posts on ANI for review. (Again, the ANI thread containing my quotes is linked from the date.) Several people agree with the block; I actually don't, but by the time I've reviewed the circumstances, Jeffrey Gustafson has extended the block to indefinite, with no other argument than "if you cannot see why he was blocked then I seriously doubt that any amount of explanation will help". I post a strong protest ("What is the Arbitration Committee for, if not for things like this?"), and Geogre also protests the indefinite block: "Blocking for [personal attacks] should never short circuit all our rules, as it makes admins the lords and masters of the personalities on Wikipedia. We don't get to do that." Woohookitty now reverts Jeffrey Gustafson's extension to indefinite, and reinstates his one-week block. This compromise still seems to me a lot for the alleged offense (in my argumentative edits in this thread I explain why I think so).

[edit] His excellency is a valuable contributor

I believe HE is very much needed at the Islam articles. I haven't reviewed them fully (life's too short for all this altogether), but Dhimmi, Criticism of Islam, and Bernard Lewis that I've looked at, together with their long and rebarbative talkpages, suffer from serious POV issues in my opinion. The first two are firmly skewed against Islam (Dhimmi is basically an attack page), while Bernard Lewis, a biography of an orientalist scholar, is adulatory in tone and quite fails to do justice to the criticisms of Lewis' approach by Edward Said, criticisms which are much more famous than Lewis himself. (Update 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC): attempt by me to NPOV the Said reference in Bernard Lewis was reverted by Pecher.[26] [27] [28].) HE's edits have greatly improved the balance of the first two articles — well, actually, only the balance of their history tabs, since he has been reverted wholesale. I refer to His excellency's evidence for the particulars, especially of User:Pecher's role. It's obvious from the article talkpages that the implacable thwarting of the good work he puts in is the main source of HE's frustration and dramatic gestures.

HE does use offensive language and nasty personal attacks sometimes, as the ArbCom must be aware after his two attempts at "wiki-harakiri" while this case was on WP:RFARB. His more usual debating technique is civil though sharp. The definitions of incivility and no personal attacks are legitimate subjects to disagree about, but I think the interpretation of "personal attack" by User:Pecher, Merzbow, and Timothy Usher is consistenly extreme, and unconstructive, in their dealings with His excellency and in relation to the Islam pages generally. I've done some sampling — I don't have any realistic chance of fully researching an unfamiliar field — and found a number of instances of content disagreements and ideological differences being shifted to the arena of civility; or in other words of criticism being dismissed as "personal attacks". Arguments for changes regularly get dismissed as mere personal attacks, and edits reverted for having no justification on Talk, "just a personal attack". [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

Perhaps WP:NPA needs to specifically point out that criticism of content is not, as such, an attack, but an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. Also that criticism of an editorial action doesn't become a personal attack just because it names the person who performed the action. HE has come in for an extraordinary number of accusations of PA's, and many — most — of these accusations seem to me to be of this nature, i. e., the accuser takes issue with his critical tone and fails to address his arguments. The effect of making content a matter of civility has been to bypass and neutralize HE's criticisms of the Islam articles. Routine accusations of personal attacks, especially by Pecher, often set up a "No Personal Attacks Vicious Circle" whereby HE is accused of making his criticisms in an insulting way (wrongly IMO, but clearly your mileage may vary), then argues to refute the charge, and then is accused of making 'further' personal attacks [34] in that argument (and at this point often enough starts making actual personal attacks and gets blocked). TU has even on ANI brought up supposed personal attacks by HE on Netscott, who has protested against the description at least once.[35]

"Your latest personal attacks": I'll give just one fuller recent example of the redefining of self-defense and/or arguing about content as personal attacks. Merzbow placed {{NPA}} templates for these edits[36], [37] (most people on ANI agreed that they were no such thing) on HE's talkpage, under the heading "Your latest personal attacks"[38], then accused HE of vandalism for removing the templates and edit warred to keep them on the page. HE complained about this on ANI ([39], a very interesting and telling ANI thread for this case altogether), asking for admin review as he suspected the templates + vandalism warnings of being an attempt to bait and intimidate him and set him up for yet another block. Merzbow's comments in the ensuing thread seem to confirm HE's view of his intentions: "In fact, before one can register a vandal or personal attack complaint on AN, one must have issued those warnings first. How somebody can criticize me for following the required process before registering these complaints is beyond me." HE's arguments in this thread go unaddressed through being redefined as personal attacks: "I leave the hysterical tone and accusations leveled by H.E. in this AN/I .. to speak for themselves" (Merzbow)..." should probably be warned for his comments in this thread if nothing else" (InShaneee).." I assure you that making personal attacks to prove that you don't make personal attacks won't get you far" (InShaneee) The most frustrating thing about systematic redefinition of this kind is that the arguments themselves are not addressed. It seems to me that Merzbow's admission above that perhaps it would have been better to ask an uninvolved admin to post the warning templates misses the point: the personal attack card shouldn't have been played at all. Every time it is played in the context of the Islam pages — almost daily — it shifts the ground from what is essentially a content dispute to a dispute about civility. The sensitivity to and insistence about "civility" functions in practice as avoidance of the substantial NPOV issues that HE raises. The first casualty of the civility war is the quality of the Islam articles.

Bishonen | talk 14:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Timothy Usher has poisoned the well. Example: Bishonen

Timothy Usher has personalized and demonized my fully argued and explained[40] [41] admin actions of shortening/reviewing two indefinite blocks of His excellency that had been posted on WP:ANI on June 18 and June 29. TU insists that these actions amount to "ongoing patronage"[42], and rarely misses an opportunity to refer contemptuously to me as HE's "dedicated enabler and champion"[43], "sympathizer" (to Dmcdevit: "If ArbCom hears the case, his sympathizer Bishonen will likely use it as an excuse to unblock him" [44]), and so on. This barrage no longer bothers me, now that there has been some public support for the propriety of my actions (thanks, guys), but at the beginning I felt it was giving me a small taste, mutatis mutandis, of what it might be like to be (all the time) a muslim editor whose arguments and evidence are eternally preambled for dismissal by "Don't listen to him, that was just/is just going to be abuse."

TU also seems to have kept a lookout for anything bishonen-related to complain about, though I believe he realizes since arbitration was requested that that makes him rather than me look bad. Here's a dialogue from July 1 where, having been alerted by right-wing anti-muslim provocateur User:FairNBalanced (see ANI discussion of possible indefinite block for FNB) to a small design on my userpage (a parody of the darwinfish which is itself a parody of the ichthys or "Jesus fish"), TU posts this sneer and then asks me rhetorically why I "see it fit to ridicule Christian fundamentalist beliefs from [my] userspace": [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] (note the charming edit summary), [50], [51], [52], [53] [54], [55]. I was quite alarmed by the way he pursued users who reverted him on that occasion. When he was warned off by El C, he took on board that he wasn't supposed to post on my page, but on July 9 he returned to it to post a link to His excellency's wildly slugging and ill-judged "wiki harakiri" on the RFAr page, and to triumphantly "congratulate" me on my "tireless efforts to keep such posts coming".[56] (Crossposted to ANI as well — doesn't miss a trick.[57]) TU's favored anti-bishonen arena is the full publicity of WP:ANI; here's a recent one, from July 10, about my "wilful" enabling of HE's "copious streams of racist, sectarian, anti-Semitic and homophobic invective." It seems to me a good illustration of the way TU's campaign against me is also an indirect way of harassing HE; what TU calls his "dispute" with me is presumably a mere, and small, aspect of his huge beef with HE. (As for direct harassment of HE, I note HE's description of his own Timothy Usher experience, eerily similar to mine: "He has made it a point to go from talk page to talk page where I had participated and make remarks against me."[58]) Bishonen | talk 15:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

I basically think we have no dispute — TU just needs to get off my case — and when he asked on July 3 if I'd partake in "dispute resolution" with him, I offered this resolution of my own. I still think that was very constructive, but I suppose we all like our own work. I followed it up with my own view of my actions in the case. TU didn't apparently like any of it.

Pecher and Merzbow have not harassed me, far from it, but have taken their cue from TU in dismissing what I say, no matter the argument I offer, as "abuse" (this mystifying edit is my only contact ever with Pecher) or "bias" (Merzbow).

Bishonen | talk 19:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

Addendum, where to find it: There are many examples in this ANI block review of June 18, and especially in this recent thread of July 8 (don't miss the two sub-headings at the end [59] [60]). Bishonen | talk 19:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Addendum, a link to complement Zora: "Facing a gang all alone"

"Driving out editors?... YES." Zora, a scholar who could have been immensely helpful in raising the quality of the Islam articles, expresses her bitter frustration in her evidence section below, without offering any diffs. As an example in miniature of what she characterizes as "facing a gang all alone", I offer my own frustrating experience of the barbed wire round the Islam articles, illustrated in this thread on Talk:Bernard Lewis. The object of discussion is a single sentence about Edward Said. Please see the reverts and the edit summaries in the article history for the dates covered by the thread. (User:Karl Meier, for instance, never appears on talk, he merely reverts "to Pecher".) Note the various purely whimsical, untrue, or merely impossible-to-rebut charges, such as: I'm accused of using the talkpage "ad nauseam", His Excellency of not using it enough. And I just recommend the tone and attitude to the arbcom's attention. It's no wonder people flee these gang-patrolled pages. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Evidence presented by User:His excellency

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: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

Mediation Cabal case on Banu Nadir. State the article was in during the dispute:[73] Timothy Usher and Pecher make two of the three involved on one side: [74]

Outside Wikipedia: Recognition of a 'conflict'on Wikipedia by Islamophobe Robert Spencer himself On JihadWatch.com[75][76] The Independent Center for Strategic Studies and Analysis:[77]

[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 . [78] [79] [80] [81] 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. [82] [83] [84]

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”.[85] [86]

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’. [87] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam&diff=prev&oldid=58662346 [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] Additionally he has repeatedly deleted content from the WP:Islam talk page, claiming it amounted to "spam". [93] [94]

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.[95] [96]

[97] [98]

• Calling attention to the Muslim Guild on the ANI entry for the “Conservative Notice Board” which had already been removed from Wikipedia namespace: [99]

• Harassment of users:

Zora over her communications with Muslims:[100]

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):[101]

Attacking a Muslim RfA applicant on grounds that he is a member of the Muslim Guild: [102] [103] [104]

Observation by user:aminz suggesting Usher ‘cleverly’ manipulated opinion:[105]

Full text of RfA, Timothy’s loaded questions appear at the end:[106]

Attacking Netscott on various conflicts: [107] [108] [109] [110]

Attacks/Harassment of User:Zereshk : [111] [112] [113]

Attack on user:BhaiSaab for supporting a point of mine:[114] [115]

Attacks on myself:

Characterizing my actions towards bringing broarder involvement on Islamic articles as “spam solicitation of religiously motivated meatpuppetry”: [116] [117] [118]

More of the same: [119]

Drawing attention to my ‘record’ where irrelevant and unwarranted:[120] [121] [122] [123] [124]

Not offensive, but annoying:[125]

Otherwise uncivil comments: [126]

BhaiSaab characterizes Timothy's harassment of me as "Wikistalking": [127] My responses: [128], [129] [130]

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. [131] He later alleges I and User:BhaiSaab made 'personal attacks' although I make no comments directed towards any user. [132] My response: [133]

Wikilawyering: to retain offensive content Dhimmi: [134] As a form of personal attack: [135]

• Defense of FairNBalanced’s display of highly offensive images:[136]

"We're at war" justification of his defense of User:FairNBalanced:[137] Netscott takes offense to Timothy Usher's rhetoric: [138] [139] [140] Somehow manages to use the Muhammad cartoons controversy to justify defending FairNBalance'd display of hate speech on Wikipedia. [141] Netscott views Timothy's words as "embracing such hateful displays" and "defending hate speech": [142] [143] [144] [145]

I am not the only, or the first, editor to have criticized his admitted opinions and his editing methods reflecting his views: [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155]

RedCrescent feels an admin should have done something about him: [156]

Incivility: comparison of editor to a murderer : [157]

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 : [158] "...by modern standards Muhammad would be considered a war criminal": [159] [160] "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.": [161] "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.": [162] "...but would behead them, seize their properties and enslave their women and children, as did Muhammad, or expel them as did Umar" : [163] 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." : [164] "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)," [165] Edit summary:BlessSins, please don't say "the Prophet" in edit summaries - his name is Muhammad "[166]

Expressing outrage at "political correctness" defending "islamism": [167]

• Support for Category: People Killed by order of Muhammad, which has since failed (notice, his is one of only two "strong keeps): [168]

• Distinguishes between “Muslims and Academics”:[169] [170]

• On article Musaylimah, so called midieval 'false prophet', Timothy edits to give the appearance that Muhammad similarly (ie falsely) ‘claimed’ to be a prophet”: [171] [172]

• Blanking of cited or otherwise undisputed material:[173] [174] [175] [176] [177] [178]

Attack on WP:Islam: [179] [180]

Uncited POV edits:[181] [182]

"We can’t say “prophet” Muhammad:[183] [184] [185] [186][187]

Talk:Muhammad No time is a bad time to call Allah "moon god": [188]

Reverting Quran to include selectively mention verses readers may consider ‘violent’ (originally Pecher’s edits): [189]

The "pedophile" allegation is well known: [190] [191] [192]

Support for now-deleted "Conservative Notice Board" to make a POINT : [193]

Entry to "Did you know" template "Did you know the booty captured by Muhammad...":[194]

• Seeks Pecher's contribution to undo "Islamist-sympathizers'"work on "Islamism":[195]

[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. [196]

He also participated in the edit war over instruction on how members of Wikiproject Islam should behave. [197] Recall I’ve explained these ‘rules’ were unfounded and offensive to Muslims. [198] [199] [200]

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.[201][202].

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. [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208][209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217], On Banu Nadir:[218][219] [220][221] User notes conflict in information:[222] [223]

User approaching Tom Harrison on Pecher's POV bias: [224]

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. [225] [226] [227].

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. [228] 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. [229] 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. [[230]] [[231]] 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. [[232]] Since then, Pecher has returned the offending paragraph to its original highly offensive form [233]

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: [234][235]

Other users pointing to Pecher’s POV bias, “Islam-bashing” and incivility: [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241][242]

Accused of being a "POV-pusher" by a User:TShilo12 on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism for his contributions to Muhammad: [243] [244]

Accused of deliberately misrepresenting source by leaving out contents of a quote in Mosque: [245] [246]

Muhammad (see above response to "POV-pushing"): [247]

Banu Nadir (talk page thread) :[248] [249] [250] [251]

Misrepresentation of text which appears to be an outright lie: [252] [253]

Lengthy challenge of Pecher's use of Norman Stillman's book, characterized as 'misrepresentation' by User:Publicola: [254] 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. [255] [256] Others: [257] (the edit in question is one of Pecher's) [258]

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: [259]

Better inflammatory than 'apologetic' (unsourced edit): [260]

Dispute between Pecher and other users on Persian Jews: [261] [262] [263]

Exclusion of source on frivilous grounds:

Dispute between Pecher and Bless Sins over a source: [264] Personal attack against Bless Sins : [265]

Deletes cited information claiming source unreliable. The same source is quoted elsewhere in the article: [266]

Deletes information that would provide context from Dhimmi : [267]

Dhimmi: Judith on impending edit war: [268] Extraordinarily high expectation from less polemic 'reliable sources';:[269] Edit summary on Dhimmi: [270] Deleting cited material that would have provided more NPOV: [271]

Mosque (see above for allegations of deliberately misquoting Bat Ye'or: [272], [273]

Collaboration with others sharing the same POV-bias. [274]

POV-biased and potentially inflammatory edit to Banu Qaynuqa: [275]

POV edits to Safiyya bint Huyayy, edit war: [276] [277][278] [279]

Defense of “Jihad Watch” (anti-Islamic hate site) by deleting cited and sourced review of it from CAIR: [280] [281]

Support for FairNBalanced's display of inflammatory images: [282]

Support for Category:People Killed on order of Muhammad:[283]

Support for: Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation: [284] Edit warring, ‘censorship’:[285]

Inflammatory/insensitive commentary by Pecher: Harassment over IbrahimFaisal’s userpage: [286] [287] [288] [289]

Insults him on Talk:Dhimmi [290], Timothy Usher joins in: [291]

Incivility:[292] Attacks on User:Publicola on Talk:Banu Nadir: [293] [294] [295]

Vandalism on Islam to make a WP:POINT [296][297]

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: [298]

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: [299] [300] [301] [302] [303] [304] [305]

[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): [306]

Abuse of the WP: NPA warning template, and subsequent use of WP: vandalism template to affect a block: [307] [308] [309] [310] [311] [312]

Aminz’s response on the warning:

[313] ANI entry I submitted: [314]

Precedence for use of this tactic on User:Salman01:[315]

Conversation on initiating an ArbComm case, recognition that Wikipedia community wouldn’t support a ban: [316]

• Content dispute: Bat Ye’or:

On Dhimmi: See talk page disputes: [317] [318] Acknowleges that Bat Ye'or is a poor source after it had been contested by several users: [319] [320]

Apparent momentary disregard for the WP:RS “guideline: [321] 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. [322] 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.. [323] [324] 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. [325] Beliefnet has been positively reviewed by the Washington Times, The Chicago Tribune, and Time Magazine. [326] 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. [327]

More: [328] [329] [330]

Removal of sourced material that would have provided context and neutrality: [331] [332]

Marzbow's 'research' presented on the Dhimmi Talk Page suggesting I made no contribution to the article:[333] My response:[334] 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. [335]

[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: [336] [337] [338]

More complaints: [339] [340]

Encouraging Tom Harrison to join in the Wikiproject Islam conflict: [341]

Involvment in Islamism: [342]

Pecher using Tom Harrison to avoid a 3RR block: [343] Pleading that Tom Harrison unblock Timothy Usher: [344] That another user's block be reviewed: [345]

On my id:[346]

[edit] In My Own Defense:

Firstly, on Hypnosadist taking offense...Consider his statements that I was responding to:[347]

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. [348] [349] [350] [351] [352] [353] [354] [355] 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: [356]

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. [357]

[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 [358][359].

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. [360] [361] [362] His Excellency... 17:15, 16 July 2006

[edit] Evidence presented by Itsmejudith

I have only really come across His excellency on the Dhimmi page so will restrict my comments to what I have seen there. I have been trying to move that article towards NPOV and consensus. So has His excellency. Every edit he has made has been, as far as I can see, an attempt in the best of faith to improve the article. I'm sad to see Merzbow using edits that His excellency made to this article as evidence against him. I would stand up for most, if not all, of those edits, so if His excellency is to be criticised for them, then I should be in trouble too. I won't go through them point by point as they have already been argued on the talk page.

I share His excellency's view on Bat Ye'or's inappropriateness as a source. This is not a minor point, as she is currently used as a major source in the article - not in the number of individual points that are sourced to her, but because the structure and approach of the article follow her method, which has been criticised by academics of different hues.

I'm very sorry that His excellency fell out with Aminz and with Merzbow, as both these people were also working positively on the article. It is a very frustrating article to work on, and it has got no better since His excellency has come away from it. You can see from the edit history and talk page that the assumption of good faith is almost entirely absent. So no wonder tempers get frayed. Wikipedia should give more credit to people like His excellency who are willing to give up their time to try and improve contentious articles. Itsmejudith 08:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

I would like to pick out two edits made by H.E. which have been described here as edit warring but were in fact genuine contributions in the context of quite complex discussions on the talk page.

1. He deleted material for which the only source was Bat Ye’or. [363]. His edit summary for this referred to discussion on the talk page and indeed there was such discussion. See concerns raised by Aminz [364] and [365] and numerous other posts during that day. I have summarised the case against this writer as an appropriate main source for a history article. [366]. Aminz and I between us have several reviews of her books, which contain some damning dismissals with clear implications for this article. Pecher seems unwilling to shift in the slightest [367] and I think the argument will have to go to whatever is the most appropriate procedure to resolve the deadlock.

2. He deleted the point relating to “marriage as slavery”. [368]. I expressed on the talk page my view that this point does not need to be included, although the discussion veered off in another direction. [369]. It does not add anything to the main idea that Muslim men could marry non-Muslim women but not vice versa. The point is sourced to Friedmann who from what I know at present is to be counted as a reliable source, but the factual situation about who could marry whom is covered by various scholars, so there is no particular need to include Friedmann here.

As evidence for the difficult situation on the page I would like to refer to the summary dismissal of my contributions. I added citation tags where it was not clear which sentence was sourced from which author. Pecher reverted these, calling them “outrageous”. [370] [371]. There was subsequent discussion on the talk page, which was inconclusive. Also, Pecher dismissed my idea of bringing in a third party saying that the page had already gone to mediation. [372] Itsmejudith 07:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Hypnosadist

Original evidence from talk page

Hi i'm one of the people that H.E. is accused of being uncivil to but thats not why i'm here. Its this;

2006-07-08 23:55:23 - "Aminz, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here."

I wanted to explain to those unfamiliar with Islam that the above is the WORST possible insult. H.E. has called Aminz an Apostate and that is one of very few insults that could be equal to Nigger for strength. This comment when i saw it and still now makes me so angry and upset for Aminzs' treatment. He was a very good editor, that he was a muslim was of great help in several articles and though i disagreed with him on many issues but we always talked civily and reached concensus if possible. And he has gone because of this insult and i'm here to stand up for his right (and hence those ofeverybody else) to edit here without religious insults. That this was not a member of the KKK that said this is totally irrelivent. H.E. has also used the word Kike as well according to the evidence.Hypnosadist 23:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to put H.E.'s comment on the talkpage into evidence and talk about them.

"Actually the K thing was only there for a few seconds (a minute or two at most). You couldn't know of it unless you took the trouble fishing for it in my edit history. I wanted to get my account banned and this whole fiasco over with. That was going much even for that purpose. I got nothing against Jews, although you can't help but note the overwhelming representation of a Jewish POV in so many of the articles. I still do want to be done with this Wikipedia thing, but I need to voice my reasons for all this frustration. On the Aminz thing, that was unfair, but your comparison is a bit over-dramatic.I think he'll be happy seeing all you folks love him so much. His Excellency... 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)"

[373] This is an example of H.E. real attitude to me, i do not think he shows me good faith.Hypnosadist 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Tom Harrison

His excellency said above, "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."

The diff of 18:08, 18 June 2006 says, "I have blocked you indefinitely. I don't intend the block to be for ever, but you can get in touch with me or another admin to unblock you when you are prepared to abide by the rules." The particular attack I blocked him for was:

"It is perfectly fair that someone point out his actual sentiment towards Muslims here. It is fair to point out that what he's demanding is not WP policy, nor the intent of the general Wikipedia community. In that context, it is also fair to point out his own statements that show him to be a devout and practicing bigot." 17:27, 18 June 2006

I maintain that my block of His excellency for that remark was appropriate, and not, as His excellency said on 04:20, 19 June 2006, "equatable to racism". Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

His excellency continues to make personal attacks:

• 04:28, 29 July 2006, "And yes, these comments strongly suggest your editings constitute works of bigotry."

Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

His excellency has used hostile edit summaries, and failed to assume good faith when he had every reason to do so

• 15:41, 25 July 2006 summary "rv Karl Meir's vandalism"
• 22:47, 3 August 2006 summary "rv vandalism"
• 23:05, 3 August 2006 discussion of the above

Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

His excellency regards his attacks on Timothy Usher as deserved.

• 01:22, 11 August 2006

Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

His excellency continues to characterize as "racist" actions he disagrees with, failing to assume good faith.

• 16:29, 13 August 2006

Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

His excellency continues to make personal attacks.

• 00:05, 15 August 2006

Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by GRBerry

I encountered some of the discussion at Talk:Criticism of Islam when I responded to an RFC raised by His Excellency. I responded 5 days later, shortly after he was put on a week block. So he didn't get a chance to respond before the discussion had moved on. Unfortunate timing. I do note that the RFC I responded to was not a neutral summary of the dispute when HE originally raised it. This was corrected by Merzbow and Aminz. See this diff [374] from after an uninvolved user had cleaned-up after that silly bug chopped the bottom off the RFC page. GRBerry 04:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Publicola

[edit] Personal attack by Pecher

13:55, June 20, 2006: "You continue to stck to your blatantly racist claims that everything written by a famous scholar is 'Jewish POV' because the scholar is Jewish. I don't see any reason to continue the discussion with an editor who not only never bothered to read Wikipedia policies, but also uses Wikipedia to advance racist views. Pecher ^Talk 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)"

Yes, I'm still sore about being called a racist repeatedly on that thread.

[edit] Pecher and Timothy Usher refuse to participate in Banu Nadir mediation

See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-19 Banu Nadir -- it's been more than half a month since the Banu Nadir mediator gave mediation instructions. Pecher and Timothy Usher remain almost entirely slient, refusing to work according to the mediator's instructions. They weren't so silent when it came to reverting away points of view other than their own from the article.

[edit] The real problem is that POV-pushing Jews outnumber, outrank, and out-collaborate POV-pushing Muslims on Wikipedia

The big elephant in the room every time another Balkan War flares up on Wikipedia is that people like His Excellency get upset when they see the blatant pro-Jewish, anti-Muslim bias which continues to exist in dozens of articles for no other reason than that there are more Jewish POV-pushers than Muslim POV-pushers. Here are the numbers:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism	80 members
Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam:The Muslim Guild	57 members

I am not saying that each of those Wikiproject members is a POV-pusher; my assumption is only that the number of the respective Wikiproject members is proportional to the number of active POV-pushers on each side. Moreover, note that WikiProject Islam includes several Jewish members of WikiProject Judaism, but the reverse is not true -- therefore the Jews apparently keep an eye on Muslim Wikiproject collaborations. The Jews also have more admins in their ranks, so it's considerably easier for them to get page protections and 3RR blocks (I've been the recipient of a borderline-3RR block handed out by an admin member of WikiProject Judaism for my efforts on Banu Nadir myself), and even count as a Wikiproject Judaism member an arbitrator (who, by the way, has voted to accept this case -- not that there was any reason to recuse other than avoiding the potential appearance of impropriety.) And, based on talk page messages in the active Wikiproject members, the Jews also seem to collaborate more than the Muslims do.

If the ArbCom really wants to prevent people like His Excellency from losing their cool, then there needs to be some effort to restore balance to the several dozen articles which are currently skewed in an anti-Muslim, pro-Jewish POV from years of one side's POV-pushers outnumbering the others'.

So, will this simply be another round of handing out blocks for the scapegoat de jure and slaps on the wrist for his opponents? Please don't miss this opportunity to make this something more than just the same old, same old.

[edit] Comment after feedback: is this really evidence?

A number of people have told me that the above section does not constitute proper evidence. On the contrary, the problem here is that the Jewish and Muslim bias problems on Wikipedia, and the resulting outrage caused in the occasional Muslim, are a result of large numbers of infractions and not just a few terribly bad individual actors as the ArbCom is used to dealing with. Since the law of large numbers comes into play, the proper way to show the evidence for this is with a numeric tally, and not a buch of diffs. If I were to try to find all the diffs for all of the POV-pushers on each side, well, I couldn't do it; it would take forever. (And they would all look trivial: A "some academic scholars think...." without a source here, and a "they converted so that they could keep their property instead of out of conviction" without a source there, and nothing which looks like really bad POV-pushing rising to the level of usual ArbCom sanctionable behavior.)

Again, the cause of this problem is not very bad behavior by a small number of people (although that is an occasional effect), the problem is a huge number of POV-pushing infractions by a large number of people. I doubt that the precidents of the ArbCom are equipped to deal with the unique character of this problem. So, if my evidence doesn't fit the list-of-diffs format that you are used to, I beg your indulgence, because there is a reason for it.

I don't know if it is evidence in a strict sense. Proving such assertions by actual evidence would be quite difficult. However. I don't think I've ever seen an identifiable Palestinian editing here. What we see is people editing for them, often with a left or right wing agenda which is quite alien to an authentic Palestinian viewpoint (Palestinians I have met are sad people who have lost their homes; they don't have much of a political agenda.). Wikipedia cannot somehow supply an active contingent of Islamist editors. They will come in time, on their own terms. Fred Bauder 18:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

I recommend that the ArbCom require His Excellency, to atone for his numerous personal attacks, to compile a list of the articles which he believes exhibit a pro-Jewish or anti-Muslim POV, along with the reasons why, so that the list can be published for all to see, and with luck, for many to work on to achive more balance.

Wikipedia's NPOV policy often means multiple points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but different groups in the past.... Adherents of a religion may object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith. They would prefer that the articles describe their faith according to their tradition and understanding, which often differs substantially from the view commonly held by critical historians. Non adherents of a religion may feel the exact opposite, and prefer that the views of critical historians be given primacy; many articles on Wikipedia currently reflect the latter point of view. NPOV policy demands both points of view be presented without prejudice. --WikiProject Judaism

Thank you. Publicola 13:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Aminz

Please note that I wholeheartedly agree with the recent comments made by Zora. Give it a double stress please

[edit] Pecher

I and Pecher have been involved on editing the same articles for a relatively long time. While Pecher has done a good job in bringing encyclopedic quality to Islam-related articles, he has in several cases, in my view, misrepresented the sources to the extent that I couldn’t believe my eyes when I first saw a book written by Bernard Lewis. Although Pecher has been kind to his friends (which is good), I haven’t seen any sign of friendliness in his conversations to editors who don’t share his POV. However in main he remains civil, though rarely sometimes his edits will get close to personal attacks (or becomes exactly personal attacks according to Admin user: InShaneee) (see ref. 1, ref. 2 below). He also sometimes seems to become impatient soon. It is clear to me he doesn’t wish the articles to become neutral, and further pushes some of the articles towards POV. (I concur with most of H.E.’s comments in that regard and would like to add ref. 3 , 4, 5…).

References:

1. [375]Also, Pecher has not explained yet what I need to learn according to his comment. If you can ask him to let me know what I should learn about my religion, that would be great.

2.[376]

3. Please have a look at these two versions of the Dhimmi article, [377] & the current version. ( Aside: Timothy loves Pecher’s version of Dhimmi article. He wanted to remove the disputed tag; Sorry Timothy, but I couldn't stop myself of mentioning this. Timothy thinks there were no "credible" active dispute on the talk page for awhile and that the tag was immediately resumed when some editors came back.)

4. Pecher "always" tends to quote something from a scholar and writes it in the general form of "X is so" rather that "Y believes X is so". Timothy Usher, still better, thinks "It is believed X is so" implies a scholar has said so. Just please have a look at this editing war I went through [378] and you’ll realize how hard it is sometimes to work with Pecher &(Timothy when Pecher is involved), especially when Pecher is hesitant to join the talk page. Please have a look at the consequent diffs as well, until the diff at “Revision as of 11:03, 13 May 2006 (edit)” where I was almost frustrated. The dispute is on two sentences “Muhammad moved to attack Khaybar in order to raise his prestige among his followers, as well as to capture booty to sustain subsequent conquests. The battle ended with Muhammad's victory which allowed him to gain sufficient money, weapons, and support from local tribes to capture Mecca just 18 months after Khaybar.” and also the tag for the article. Of course, it is not Muslim POV that Muhammad had exactly that two motivation. All I was asking was writing the sentence as "X says Y is so" so that Muslims would be able to add their POV. I wish Merzbow was there. Sigh!

5. We had an unsuccessful mediation over the Dhimmi article. I presented to Pecher “a reliable source” that Grand Ayatollah Fazel Lankarani considers people of the book ritually clean. I also told ManiF about this and he made such a claim on the talk page of Persian Jews. However Pecher pretended as if he doesn’t know it and asked ManiF to find reliable sources for his claim. (See this [379] ) – I don’t want to mention the pain I went through to insert the very fact I found into the Dhimmi article. Tom Harrison can testify to this. But guess what as soon as I got the Lewis book, I realized that Lewis says that the ritual purity ideas have been remembered recently (of course this was censured (my bad english) hidden by Pecher), so it shouldn’t seem quite un-plausible that a contemporary jurist doesn’t take the idea.

--Aminz 02:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum

I believe Pecher is not only non-friendly, but also doesn't assume good faith. I will find more diffs, but please have a look at Pecher's accusation of me here: [380] --Aminz 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum II

Claim: Pecher removes or suppresses sourced material:

Please see: [381]. After Pecher's removal of the section, I started the following discussion [382]. Everybody except Pecher has agreed that Jewish Encyclopedia could be used when it is explicitly attributed to the authors,unless it is contradicted by a more recent peer reviewed journal. But Pecher while not providing any more recent peer reviewed journal disputes the section.

Also, I have seen several cases in which (to my mind) Pecher try to find pretexts to remove sourced material rather than presenting them in a good form. He also starts doing this without discussing the matter on the talk page and by doing so, he usually starts an editing war. (e.g.[383]; another example is this [384]. This text was clearly relevant to the Dhimmi article and was finally added into this article in this way [385]; but its whole removal when there was no discussion on it on the talk page only increased the tension and caused edit-wars). I can provide more examples if needed.

[edit] Addendum III

One more example of representation of a text by Pecher:

In the intro in najis article we read:

The concept is of particular importance to Shi'a Islam, where the belief in the uncleanness of non-Muslims brought restrictions and persecutions to the non-Muslim population of Persia. In Persia, Shi'a Muslims sought to limit contact with non-Muslims by requiring them to settle in separate parts of the city, banning them from public baths, or demanding them not to go out in rain or snow

Here Pecher removes the word "19th century" from the article: [386] added by user Khoikhoi stating it contradicts the sources.

In p.33-34 Lewis we read (I exactly quote the whole thing from the source):

Shi'ite Muslims are further concerned with the question of ritual purity. Purity and impurity are matters of great importance for practicing Muslims. Defilement, according to Muslim jurists, produces a state of ritual impurity and may result from sexual intercourse,...[it continues]. Among the strict shia, non-Muslims also fall into this category, and contact with them, or with clothes, food, or utensils handled by them, causes ritual impurity requiring purification before undertaking religous or ritual duties. Some authorities in Iran were even stricter on the question of ritual purity. Thus the first set of rules dating from late nineteenth-century Iran forbids Jews to go out of doors when it rains or snows, persumably for fear lest the rain or snow carry the impurity of the Jews to the Muslims. ... By the early years of the twentieth century such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered. The Ayatollah Khomeini, in a widely circulated book written .....

Points #1. Lewis talks of the first set of regulations being set in 19th century. The beliefs and resulting practices were being forgotten gradually by the early years of 20th century, but being remembered recently. Pecher's edit implies as if this has been always the case. <-- I personally consider this as misrepresentation of the source through over-generalization.

Point #2. Pecher removed the word "19th century" from the article. I don't know why. <-- I personally consider this as removal of sourced material.

Another example:

Here Pecher claims that the sources are twisted: [387]. However, I claim he is removing sourced material. Here is the exact quote from Lewis:

“

Shi'ite Muslims are further concerned with the question of ritual purity. Purity and impurity are matters of great importance for practicing Muslims. Defilement, according to Muslim jurists, produces a state of ritual impurity and may result from sexual intercourse, ... Among the strict shia, non-Muslims also fall into this category, and contact with them, or with cloths, food, or utensils handled by them, causes ritual impurity requiring purification before undertaking religous or ritual duties. Some stricter authorities in Iran were even stricter on the question of ritual impurity. Thus the first set of rules dating from late nineteenth-century Iran forbids Jews to go out of doors when it rains or snows, persumably for fear lest the rain or snow carry the impurity of the Jews to the Muslims. Such obsessive concerns with the dangers of pollution by unclean persons of another group is virtually limited to Iranian Shiism and may be influenced by Zoroastrian practices. It is unknown to mainstream Sunni Islam. By the early years of the twentieth century such beliefs and the resulting practices were gradually being forgotten. More recently, however, they have again been remembered. The Ayatollah Khomeini, in a widely circulated book written .....

”

[edit] Timothy Usher

"Timothy Usher placed on Probation for one year"??? I don't see any sign of justice here... Are arbitrators supposed to condemn someone from both parties to establish justice? Have arbitrators all reviewed the case or they are just voting based on what previous arbitrators have voted? "He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior." Where are you guys going? I am sorry but it is FUNNY. Edit warring? As I said, H.E., Pecher and myself do edit warring but Timothy rarely does but it seems my words are ignored in wikipedia. Disrupting by Timothy Usher??? I won't believe it until I see the diffs. You must be kidding. Did you copy/paste this line from somewhere? Okay. I know you are going to get angry at me. But you don't need to go through the trouble of forming "finding of facts". I, myself, will leave here. --Aminz 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merzbow

Merzbow is so innocent that I don't think anybody needs to write anything in his defense.

To be completed.

[edit] His Excellency

Well, my experience with His Excellency is not extensive. I prefer to tell the story from beginning to the end.

Well, my experience with H.E. goes back to his previous account. I saw him occasionally editing criticism of Islam article and because of his strange username “Amibidhrohi” (I can not even pronounce his username well) I was always curious to see his edits there; those edits were quite mild I remember. His edits were usually minor and mild as I vaguely remember. But my main experience with him started with his second username. He posted a message to the talk page of the criticism of Islam article which was followed by a message from Timothy on the talk page of the same article, informing us that His Excellency is Amibidhrohi, which I didn’t care. I also wasn't surprised (Well, My vague idea is that Timothy is engaged in figuring out who is the sock puppet of who :) But I don't know) Anyways, unlike Amibidhrohi that I knew, at the first place I found H.E. to be over active. Apparently, the current situation of some articles seemed to be far from being neutral according to his POV. Anyways, many of his later edits did contain personal attacks. I think *part* of it may originate from his feeling that other editors, especially me, don’t understand him (which I should confess I now realize this has been personally true in a few cases e.g. I completely changed my mind on this section in the criticism of Islam article after some reflection and refering back to the original sources [Criticism_of_islam#Criticism_of_the_methods_used_by_critics]). I would like to end my comments by pointing out that I think from the point of view of an objective observer: he was impatient, made many personal attacks and this must have bothered some others editors at times. --Aminz 09:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Zora

I got an email from His Excellency asking me to give evidence. Otherwise I wouldn't have known of this arbitration, as I've been on an extended Wiki-break. I was getting too angry and upset.

I don't have much of an opinion on HE, or any of his avatars, other than to say that it sounds as if he also is getting angry and upset. I don't support anger and personal attacks, but I must say that I can certainly understand his reaction. The editors pursuing the case against him have done their best to turn the Islam-related articles into an indictment of Islam and Muhammad. They show no concern with fairness or NPOV. I couldn't stand it ... I felt as I were facing a gang all alone. I was losing my temper and my balance, so I left. Driving out editors? Non-Muslim editors who want to give the academic POV? YES. Zora 07:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by BhaiSaab

I had a long-standing conflict with Timothy Usher over many of the edits he was making (and perhaps he with edits I was making) to the Muslim Guild page, Wikiproject Islam, as well as a few articles (all detailed at H.E.'s section of this evidence). Although I think this conflict has ended, I credit His Excellency with helping me end it [388]- and he also made statements [389] that I did not have the courage to make. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Timothy Usher

It seems appropriate that "His excellency's" attitude towards Muslims - not about Islamic ideas, or Islamic history, but about Muslim people - be highlighted:

• "To be honest, I think Muslims do tend to stand out as the most apathetic and cold hearted people amongst religions and nations. They're pathetic."[390]
• "Muslims used to rule over nations. Now Muslims carry on as if they'd been castrated by the West."[391]
• "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."[392]

You're not really a Muslim unless you join H.E. in his personal attacks against the list of Wikipedia editors he's designated as stand-ins for the West.Timothy Usher 12:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Pecher

• "And here I was convinced that you were a paid employee of Hizb Ut Tahrir."[393]
• "I know it's difficult for you Americans to percieve of a living world beyond their own borders"[394]
• "Christian right wing hillbillies shouldn't be allowed internet access."[395]
• "Do you work for Fox News by any chance? Quit with the vandalism. Do not remove the information I added in. As opposed to the trash that you and your right-wing lackies added to the entry, my information is verifiable and cited."[396]
• "Your 'fair and balanced' eyes missed a few paragraphs.Learn to read."[397]

Some of the incivilities above come from Amibidhrohi's very first days on Wikipedia. This jas been his pattern of editing from the beginning, and it's only getting worse. Pecher ^Talk 20:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Andjam

• Accusations of vilification in Council on American-Islamic Relations: [398]
• Uses a procedural threat rather than mediation in a content dispute about Council on American-Islamic Relations: [399]

Andjam 03:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• His Excellency refers to the US Institute of Peace commending CAIR when complaining about negative content about the organization. While I feel it is being original research to say that the USIOP wouldn't commend a group which possesses bad intentions, if you want to go down that path, it would be worth noting that the USIOP possess, at best, poor judgement: the USIOP gave a scholarship to Naveed Afzal Haq soon before the shooting of the Seattle Jewish Federation. Andjam 03:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)