Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aminz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

User:Aminz has engaged in sustained, aggressive point-of-view editing and edit warring on a number of articles and sections of articles related to the interactions of Islam with other religions, notably persecution of Chrisians in Muslim lands and Muslim antisemtism. The user makes sweeping, undiscussed, tendentious rewrites so that articles reflect the point of view favorable to Islam. While at first sight Aminz appears to use reliable, scholarly sources, a closer look at his edits reveals that he cherry-picks quotes out of context, presents a minority view as fact, and engages in original research by attributing to sources things they do not say. In so doing, Aminz has systematically ignored consensus on talk pages and resorted to edit warring. As a rule, discussions with Aminz span numerous sections on talk pages and can last for months; however, they are usually fruitless, as Aminz never changes his position, accepts a compromise, or defers to the consensus of other editors. Whenever an article is not exactly in Aminz’s version, he edit wars to insert disputed tags, even if the consensus of editors is clearly against him. As a result, Aminz was blocked multiple times for 3RR violations and edit warring.

On Christianity, Aminz made a sweeping rewrite of the section on persecution of Christians so as to deny or minimize the persecution of Christians under Muslim rule. When his edits were reverted, Aminz edit warred to restore his version or insert various disputed tags into the article even though all other editors objected to his edits (see discussions here, here, here, here, here). Acting against the principles of {WP:GA]], Aminz delisted Christianity from good articles, even though he was heavily involved in editing it (see here. Aminz was blocked for 3RR violation on Christianity (see block log)

Aminz made a series of tendentious edits to Islam and anti-Semitism[1], as a result of which the intro of the article degenerated into a collection of quotes denying the existence of antisemitism among Muslims: “There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-semitism", Claude Cahen, a distinguished Islamic historian states by comparing medieval Christendom and medieval Islam. Bernard Lewis states that "In Islamic society hostility to the Jew is non-theological. It is not related to any specific Islamic doctorine, nor to any specific circumstance in Islamic sacred history." Mark Cohen states that "Islam has, despite of many upsets, shown more toleration than Europe towards the Jews who remained in Muslim lands". Aminz ignored objections of other editors (see Talk:Islam_and_antisemitism#There_is_nothing..._and_more). However, when the prior version of the lead paragraph was restored, Aminz edit warred to insert various disputed tags into the article.

Aminz continued his POV editing of antisemitism topics on New antisemitism. He started by pusing into the intro the claim that "to hate and persecute Jews is not necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism."[sic][2] and edit warred to reinsert that passage into the lead, when other editors restored the consensus version, observing that the claim above is highly idiosyncratic and not obviously related to the subject of the article. Aminz then attempted to insert a section titled "Why and How antisemitism appeared among Muslim Arabs".[3] The section claimed that antisemitism only appeared in the Muslim world in the 19th century, even though the claim was not relevant to the subject of the article and was not supported by the extant literature on antisemitism in the Muslim lands (see below for a discussion of original research by Aminz). After his edits were rejected by the consensus on the talk page, Aminz inserted various disputed tags into the article, again edit warred when the tags were removed, and was blocked for a violation of WP:3RR on New antisemitism (see block log).

On Antisemitism, Aminz made a sweeping rewrite of the section regarding anti-Semitism and the Muslim world with his version saying "There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel. However many scholars believe that antisemtism arosed [sic] in Muslim lands after establishment of the state of Israel though this is disputed. (see new antisemitism)."[4] Aminz’s edits violated both WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, as none of the sources cited by Aminz supported his version of the section (see evidence below). Having failed to win consensus for his version, as other editors pointed out that Aminz’s edits were in both POV and original research because the sources he provided did not deny the existence of anti-Semitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of Israel (see discussions here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here), Aminz edit warred with the help of User:Truthspreader (who was blocked for 3RR violation on Antisemitism), User:Nielswik, and banned User:BhaiSaab. Aminz was also later blocked for edit warring on Antisemitism (see block log). Seeing that the common opinion of other editors was against him, Aminz edit warred to insert various dispute tags into the section and was blocked for edit warring. He then attempted to force the tag into the article by initiating a poll and solicited 8 users to vote ([5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]); those who responded to solicitation endorsed Aminz’s position.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Disruption on Christianity

  1. Tendentious editing meant to deny that there were any violent persecutions of Christians under Islam[13][14]
  2. Edit warring [15][16][17][18][19][20][21]
  3. Disruptive overtagging[22]
  4. Another tendentious rewrite with an edit summary "i’m back" and simultaneous addition of a “POV” tag to the section[23][24][25]
  5. Started a section with a certainly POV title "How Christianity has changed the world"[26]

[edit] Disruption on New antisemitism

  1. Tendentious editing to the lead of the article so as to give undue weight to certain points of view and edit warring, even though his edits failed to meet consensus (see discussions here and here)[27][28][29][30][31][32]
  2. Insertion of material irrelevant to the topic of new anti-Semitism, but meant to improve the image of Islam vis-à-vis Christianity, and edit warring when his edits failed to meet consensus (see discussion)[33][34][35][36]
  3. Insertion of material irrelevant to the topic of new anti-Semitism, but meant to demonstrate that anti-Semitism among Muslim appeared only in the 19th century; edit warring when his edits failed to meet consensus (see discussion)[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]
  4. Insertion of a disputed tag into the article and edit warring to keep it there in disregard of consensus (see discussion)[44][45][46][47][48]
  5. Violation of WP:POINT by adding a comment made by Jayjg on talk page [49] to the article, adding a {{citation needed}} tag to it and edit warring to keep the comment in the article [50][51][52] despite warnings by several editors that his actions are in violation of WP:POINT[53][54][55]

[edit] Disruption on Antisemitism

  1. Undiscussed, tendentious rewrite of the section “Antisemitism and the Muslim world” and subsequent edit warring, first to keep his version of the section, then to insert a dispute tag despite consensus on talk[56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]
  2. Violation of WP:POINT by first adding a paragraph[74] and then removing it with an edit summary “it didn’t work” [75] when the paragraph was slightly modified and moved to the end of the section[76]
  3. Aminz has engaged in original research in order to advance his POV on antisemitism and prove that there was no anti-Semitism in the Muslim world before the establishment of the State of Israel: Aminz’s edit[[77]“There was not such a thing that would be called Antisemitism in Muslim lands before the establishment of the state of Israel. However many scholars believe that antisemtism arosed in Muslim lands after establishment of the state of Israel though this is disputed. (see new antisemitism). <ref name=LewisBrandeis1>Lewis, Bernard. "The New Anti-Semitism", The American Scholar, Volume 75 No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 25-36. The paper is based on a lecture delivered at Brandeis University on March 24, 2004.</ref> <ref> Mark Cohen (1995) p.xvii </ref> <ref> Lewis (1984) p.85 </ref> <ref> Muslim Anti-Semitism, by Bernard Lewis, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998 </ref>, also this edit[78] with an edit summary “yet another source talking of absense of anti-semtism in Muslim lands”<ref> Joel S. Migdal, Boundaries and Belonging (2004), Cambridge University Press, p.55 </ref>

What the sources really say:
“The Western form of anti-Semitism—the cosmic, satanic version of Jew hatred—provided solace to wounded feelings. It came to the Middle East in several stages. The first stage was almost entirely Christian, brought by European missionaries and diplomats. Its impact was principally on the local Christian minorities, where we find occasional recurrences of the previously little known blood libel. In the 15th and 16th centuries this had indeed been explicitly rejected in orders issued by Ottoman sultans. It was now revived on a massive scale. The first major case was the Damascus blood libel in 1840. This kind of anti-Semitism continued to grow, at first on a small scale, during the 19th and early 20th centuries, with a limited response. At the time of the Dreyfus Affair in France, Muslim opinion was divided, some against Dreyfus, some supporting him. A prominent Muslim thinker of the time, the Egyptian Rashid Rida, wrote defending Dreyfus and attacking his persecutors, accusing them not of fanaticism, since they had no real religious beliefs, but of prejudice and envy. Despite this response, one consequence of the affair was the first translation into Arabic of a batch of European anti-Semitic writings.” (Lewis, Bernard. "The New Anti-Semitism", The American Scholar, Volume 75 No. 1, Winter 2006, pp. 25-36.) The source clearly says that the European antisemitism penetrated into the Muslim world in the 15th or 16th century at the latest and that antisemitism was present among the Muslim of the Middle East back in the 19th century.

“There is nothing in mediaeval Islam which could specifically be called anti-Semitism.” (Cohen, Mark (1995). Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-01082-X., p. xvii) The statement from the source is limited to medieval Islam.

Muslim Anti-Semitism, by Bernard Lewis, Middle East Quarterly, June 1998. The source never says that anti-Semitism only appeared in Muslim lands after the establishment of Israel.

“The success of this system — insofar as the empire's Jews were concerned — was reflected in the virtual absence of anti-Semitism from the Ottoman landscape." (Joel S. Migdal, Boundaries and Belonging (2004), Cambridge University Press, p.55) The source talks about a virtual rather than complete absence of antisemitism and only in the Ottoman Empire rather than all Muslim lands.

[edit] Disruption on Islam and antisemitism

  1. Edit warring to insert disputed tags [79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:NOR
  3. WP:NOT
  4. WP:3RR
  5. WP:LEAD
  6. WP:CONSENSUS

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. See above links for protracted, months-long talk page discussions. Aminz was asked repeatedly to stop his activities[90][91][92]
  2. [93]
  3. [94][95]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Beit Or 20:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Although I don't endorse the WP:POINT part, I can easily see that being a good faith addition. -Amark moo! 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Proabivouac 09:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Karl Meier 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Arrow740 23:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Bakaman 03:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. RunedChozo 16:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Amey Aryan DaBrood© 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Str1977 (smile back) 18:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. TewfikTalk 19:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. --D-Boy 21:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Elizmr 10:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. KittyHawker 20:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The above diffs are taken from Christianity article and Antisemitism (related) articles. Please note that when I was presenting a view from scholarly sources, unlike others, I never claimed it is the truth' but rather a POV. I have been always open to addition of POV tag if someone thinks there are scholars who disagree with a presented view. The users who filed this RfC not only easily remove scholarly views but further remove the POV tags.

On Christianity article: First of all, please note that none of the editors who submitted this RfC were involved in that discussion. Starting from very beginning, the first I noticed the article it was written “State persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire is taken to have ended with the Edict of Milan but it persisted or even intensified in other places, such as Sassanid Persia and later under Islam.”

  • In the evidence section, the first provided diff (alleging that I was disrupting) is the following: [96]. That’s not true. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/history/persecution.htm is not a reliable source per WP:RS, rather just an unsigned article on some random website. The next reference is Bat Ye'or who is very controversial within academia (see [97]). For example Prof. Mark Cohen writes that she exaggerates acts of Islamic persecution selectively. I think it is quite reasonable to avoid her and use sources like Bernard Lewis and Mark Cohen when the issue of Islamic persecutions comes up. The quote I added was taken from the book 'Christianity and Roman Society' published by Cambridge university press, a perfectly scholarly source[98](The relevant page is available at books.google.com). But I would like to explain my addition: I have a high respect for Jesus and Christianity and my other edits to Christianity article show that (e.g. the above mentioned diff [99]: I'll comment about the heading). That quote was added because there was no mention of Christian persecution of Christian in that section AND some editors on the talk page of Christianity were denying or underestimating that persecution.
  • The problems I saw with the section: But of course, I was seeing some problems with this section of this "GA" article, and I still see problems. God knows, while I had all reliable sources to prove my case, I suffered a lot there. There was of course discrimination (both social and legal) against the Christians and Jews (known as Dhimmi) under Muslim rule, however as Lewis says: Persecution in the sense of "violent and active repression, was rare and atypical." (Please see this quote from Lewis's book here [100] you may need a gmail account to see the page, sorry.)
I felt it is necessary to mention this point. Lewis also says: "Most of these disabilities had a social and symbolic rather than a tangible and practical character."[101] In fact, the pact of Dhimmi guaranteed Dhimmi's personal safety and security of property, in return for paying tribute and acknowledging Muslim supremacy. Of course there are instances, though rare, where fanatics and extremes took the goverment in some places and didn't follow this. After all these discussions, the article now says: "Later, under Islam, Christians were subjected to various legal restrictions and at times also suffered violent persecution or confiscation of their property." hiding the fact that those [*at times*] were rare times when fanatics were in power.
I had other points as well. I think it is not fair to say that I was disruptive.
  • Regarding the edit summery "i’m back": Well, it is one of the steps of the dispute resolution process to stay away from the article for awhile, so did I. It was not disruption.
  • Regarding the heading "How Christianity has changed the world"[102]: The heading is bad english for an encyclopedia but it is not different from "Reforms under Christianity" or "Historical impact of Christianity". That was the first heading I came up with but others later modified it. That's not POV pushing. The reason I changed back the heading (for once) was my unintentional mistake. I didn't notice it. I simply copy pasted the new version of the section from word to wikipedia.

On Antisemitism related articles:The accusations present a completely twisted version of the actual content disputes what happened. The editors who filed this RfC held that anti-Semitism was existent among Muslims to a notable degree from the very beginning, from the time of Muhammad up to now. For example [103], (Please note that the status of Dhimmi was also the status of Dhimmis in Medieval times and, Almohads, Maimonides belong to medieval times), or see the short historical timeline Humus sapiens presents [104]. In fact, when a quote I showed them from Encyclopedia of Islam was saying that there was no anti-Semitism in medieval times because “there had been scarcely any difference in the treatment accorded to Christians and Jews”, Humus sapiens flatly rejected the reliability of the source saying [105]. Right now, the section on Islam in Antisemitism article starts with a detailed section on the Jews in Qur’an which is not directly relevant giving the same impression that Antisemitism has been permanent in Islam. The section is also very POV. The summary of views on Antisemitism in classical periods of Muslim history was presented here [106] but obviously it was not tolerated. I have prepared an RfC on these users which I try to post it when I get free. [107]

For the views of different sources on Antisemitism, please see [108] [109].

Now, I’d like to explain my edits to these articles explaining my edits based on the sources I had since by the time of my edits and how these were modified when I learned more.

Comments about Antisemitism in medieval times: In the very beginning, I had no clear idea of what antisemitism was. My only knowledge was the POV of Claude Cahen in Encyclopedia of Islam(which could be found here ([110]) As such I believed while there was negative attitudes, discriminations and prejudice but no antisemitism. My knowledge was later completed as I found a source from S.D. Goeith who states that "Still “anti-Semitism,” that is, hostility directed against the Jewish community, was not entirely absent from medieval islam, as has been assumed." (under the footnote for "as has been assumed", Goitein writes: "Even by such an eminent authority as Claude Cahen (in the EI article quoted above)"). Okay, I learned that there are scholars who dispute Claude Cahen. Then it comes to Lewis. Lewis believes there were no antisemitism for a reason other than lack of the difference between treatment of Jews and Christians: He says there was no antisemitism because there was no attribution of cosmic evil to Jews. Okay. This is another thing I learned. Please note that while my edits were becoming more and more comperhensive and complete, the editors on the other side were rejecting all these sources based on unreliability. That Encyclopedia of Islam could not be used because "Beit Or: You must cite scholars of antisemitism when editing this topic." or "Humus sapiens:After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy." There were also other sources saying lack of antisemitism which Beit Or hided. Nissim Rejwan for example states "Anti-Semitism, then, is an exclusively Christian phenomenon and, as such, a predominantly Western one. It is therefore both historically wrong and morally inexcusable to try to apply the term to non-Christian and non-Western societies." It is certainly an academic POV that there was no antisemitism in the Medieval times. S.D. Goeith has a different POV. That "was not entirely absent from medieval islam, as has been assumed." but then he comments that if the term "antisemitism" could be used for the particular form of anti-Judaism understood from the Geniza letters, the antisemitism appears to have been local and sporadic rather than general and endemic. My POV was an academic POV but the other partie's POV that antisemitism was there and permanent from the very beginning is no academic POV. It is rather a Jewish POV, Mark Cohen points out.

Comments about Antisemitism in modern times: I have been criticized for writing that Antisemitism came to Arab world because of the establishment of state of Israel. I don't know why Beit Or points out to some sources he chooses and then complains why they don't say that. I need to find sources based on which I wrote that sentence. It was based on Norman Stillman's quote:

Increased European commercial, missionary and imperialist activities within the Muslim world during the 19th and 20th centuries introduced anti-Semitic ideas and literature into the region. At first these prejudices only found a reception among Arabic-speaking Christian protégés of the Europeans in Syria, Lebanon and Egypt and were too new and too palpably foreign for any widespread acceptance among Muslims. However, with the ever-increasing conflict between Arabs and Jews in Palestine during the period of the British Mandate, the language and imagery of European anti-Semitism began to appear in political polemics both in the nationalist press and in books.

He can complain that many scholars would disagree with this BUT he can not use another scholar to refute the view of another scholar.

My reponse section would be very lengthy if I want to respond to all the diffs presented. Many of the diffs are disputes on tagging the article. It is pretty clear to me that while there is a dispute over neutrality of the article, there should be a tag unless some people want to push their POV. Other diffs are pointing to content disputes which I have tried to explain. There is one diff (second point in the antisemitism section), the edit summary “it didn’t work”: See, after some discussion on Encyclopedia of Islam and its reliability, I added the view that according to some scholars there was no antisemitism in medieval times hoping that it would stay this time (unlike past [111]) but then Beit Or pushed it all the way down to the end of the section, presenting it as an aside point[112]. So, I reverted it because now that he couldn't deny reliability of the source he wanted to make it as unnoticable as possible.

Edit warring: Well, first of all, it is very surprising to see this accusation coming from Beit Or and Humus sapiens (particularly Beit Or). Just please have a look at the history of Antisemitism article [113]. I may prepare an statistics of Beit Or's reverts to that article. But I admit that in frustration times, when I see presenting reliable sources won't work, I may edit-war. Working on some articles is sometimes really really tough and depressing...

The poll: The poll was initiated to just show that there EXISTS some dispute over neutrality of the article rather than voting who is right. I just wanted to have the POV tag while there is an active dispute on the neutrality of the article. I didn't by any means merely asked Muslim editors to comment. I also asked two Jewish editors, User:Jossi and User:Jpgordon as well as Christian editors such as Tom Harisson and atheist ones such as User:Merzbow. Among Muslim Users that I asked, there were some who didn't comment (e.g. User:Itaqallah). That's one of the most unjust accusation brought up here. It is strange that some users are bothered to see others have neutrality problems with the article they have written.

Response to CltFn I nominated the books for deletion because there are millions of books around. We can not have an article on each of them in a scientific Encyclopedia; the books should be discussed in Spencer's page unless there is something especial about the books. It was not a bad faith nomination.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. If Paul Johnson (journalist) is a more authentic source[114] than Encyclopedia of Islam[115] and Academic journals and problem of page ownership is significant as also mentioned by Palmiro, a similar case can easily be filed against filing party.TruthSpreaderreply 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Your insinuation that "a similar case can easily be filed against the filing party", unsupported by any evidence, is essentially a personal attack. Elizmr 11:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't think it is. It's rather in the nature of the thing that each side attempts to define sources that favour its POV as "better" or more "reliable". And Paul Johnson! Please. Grace Note 07:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

[edit] Outside view from Zora

Aminz spends a lot of time on WP and he has a definitely rosy view of Islam and Muhammad, but I have never found him unreasonable or difficult. When I've tried to NPOV articles, and add academic views in addition to Islamic ones, he's been perfectly OK with that. He understands that he has a POV and is willing to let other POVs have a place in the article.

He's been taking the brunt of an attack on Islam-related articles by editors who hate Islam and Muslims and sometimes losing his balance. The editor who has brought this RFC against him is one of the more aggressively anti-Muslim editors. This RFC is an attempt to neutralize a perceived "enemy" and capture various Islam-related articles as pulpits from which to preach hatred of Islam.

I've stayed out of the more contentious Islam-related articles recently. I felt that I was being ground between two millstones, the pious Muslims and the anti-Muslim editors, and I was losing my balance. Quite a few of the editors I regard as even-handed in the matter have succumbed to the same fatigue. Aminz has tried to take up the slack and may be losing his balance too, if he's going over 3RR repeatedly.

The real culprit here is the design of WP, and it's going to doom WP unless we institute some crowd control. When writing articles becomes a game of "capture the flag for my team," the articles turn into churning mush. Zora 23:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. With the exception of the second paragraph, which I can't comment on, not being fully familiar with the issues and editors involved. (I'd like to clarify, since I have had dealings with two of the certifying editors, that I very decidedly don't regard either Humus Sapiens or SlimVirgin as anti-Islamic, indeed I've seen SlimVirgin strongly oppose anti-Islamic bigotry. I have too little experience of Beit Or to comment on him. Palmiro | Talk 23:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)) Palmiro | Talk 23:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse the general idea here-the "capture the flag" problem is a significant one, we really need some type of binding resolution for content issues. Seraphimblade 02:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. As Seaphimblade said, "capture of flag" is definitely a big issue. WP needs to introduce some mechanism to deal with that. TruthSpreaderreply 05:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm not sure how far I endorse the first paragraph, but the rest are certainly true. -Amark moo! 06:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Aminz 06:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. ITAQALLAH 08:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. --- ALM 10:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Abu ali 19:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Endorse per Palmiro. I wouldn't accuse any editor of hating Islam but there is a tendency on the part of some people to see religion as a zero-sum game. Like Zora I find editing in this territory very trying and tiring.Itsmejudith 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. I haven't editted any of the articles but watch several of them mainly from curiosity. I would not have worded the first and fourth paragraphs of this comment that way but I have seen plenty of signs of aggressive editting toward Aminz (bordering on goading) and I certainly don't think that portraying him as the source of the problem is accurate. --BozMo talk 13:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Good summary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Agree. I wish WP admins (or whoever can cause reform) could have a look and consider Zora's last paragraph.Bless sins 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. endorse. also support the statement regarding "capture the flag" thing. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. -- tariqabjotu 04:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. --Zereshk 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. With reservations per Palmiro. Grace Note 06:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. While I'm not entirely familiar with the User:Beit Or, the individual who filed this RfC, I do agree with User:Zora that there is an anti-Muslim brigade (as User:Grenavitar has described it) and I also agree with the comment about "capturing articles". In fact to a certain extent I think the current brouhaha over on the Muhammad article is partially a manifestation of that. (→Netscott) 18:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View of BostonMA

The attempts at dispute resolution listed in this RfC (at least so far) are not what one might expect to see before the filing of an RfC. In particular, the apparent absence of negotiation is notable. --BostonMA talk 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I only see one (borderline) piece of "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" on Aminz's user talk page; two of those given appear to be essentially different stages in the production of the same remark, and this one may or may not be a justified complaint, but it's hardly a useful step in resolving a dispute. Palmiro | Talk 00:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Kendrick7talk 01:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. RfC definitely seems premature here. Seraphimblade 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. After looking at this RFC, I think a similar one can also be filed against the filing party. TruthSpreaderreply 05:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Aminz 06:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. ITAQALLAH 08:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. ALM 10:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Agree with above arguments. This RfC looks very hostile, almost going against WP:NPA. Feer 13:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Asteriontalk 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Itsmejudith 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Badbilltucker 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC) - There does seem to be a pronounced lack of negotiation or discussion as indicated before the filing of an RfC. While I can acknowledge that the sources might be disputable (at this point, I haven't checked them myself) there appear to have been relatively few steps taken to have resolved the dispute. I definitely think other steps could and should have been taken before this.
  12. Sa.vakilian--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. BozMo talk 13:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. pertn 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Evidence proffered of attempting to resolve the dispute is totally inadequate. GRBerry 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Agree with the above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. Farhoudk 17:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  19. Indeed.--Zereshk 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  20. I agree with this:"After looking at this RFC, I think a similar one can also be filed against the filing party." Beit or, you have lot much bias than Aminz, e.g. see Shiraz blood libel, I am sure that you don't know anything about Shia sect or Pesian Jews. I hope you at least have talked to a Persian Jew before writing that article. --Pejman47 23:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View of ALM

My experience is that Aminz provide sources always of whatever he says. It is pity that if some editors have contents dispute and have difference in views then they file RFC against each other. That is if I work on Islam articles then I file RFC against all working on criticism of Islam and vice versa. Both User:Beit Or and Aminz are such example of working on same kind of articles with different sides hence naturally they had content disputes. I can tell many places where User:Beit Or has removed well-sourced material based on his own POV without providing any alternative sources (for example [116]). Although he is critical to Islam related articles but he choose himself to evaluate Islam article GA status. However, having all this disagreements with him I will not file an RFC against him. It is because we should not use RFC as a mean to get rid of the editors we do not agree. --- ALM 13:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sa.vakilian--Sa.vakilian 03:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Farhoudk 17:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Zereshk 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Pejman47 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Tom Harrison

I think Aminz is editing in good faith to present a point of view that he sees as under-represented. To the extent that this point of view is presented in reliable sources, it should be presented in the articles, subject to due weight, summary style, etc. He has at times edited more agressively than is useful, but honestly on contentious pages this is not uncommon. The pages as they are reflect the consensus of editors who choose to follow them. Unless a number of editors who share Aminz' perceptions start editing Wikipedia, I don't see that consensus changing. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. I concur, but that form of consensus isn't a real WP:CONSENSUS. The problem is often that editors following a certain topic may all share the same cultural bias, and then there's an echo-chamber effect which drowns out outside views. That's why a willingness to discuss, WP:AGF, and possibly lay bare what cultural biases are at play is important to reaching WP:CONSENSUS; as User:BostonMA points out from the examples cited here it's not entirely clear how effective the consensus building process has been on these issues. User:Zora's view shows how easy it is for all sides to develop a bunker mentality when cultures collide. -- Kendrick7talk 19:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. as per Kendrick7. TruthSpreaderreply 21:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Concur except that I don't think the problem is "cultural bias". Editors do come from a range of cultures and sometimes that gets in the way of understanding, but more often it is productive. I think the main barriers are political, not cultural. Anyway, Aminz is as good at cross-cultural understanding as we have a right to expect.Itsmejudith 22:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Useful comment; better than mine. Thanks. Zora 03:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. I agree that Aminz is editting in good faith.Proabivouac 03:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Aminz 05:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Merzbow 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Sa.vakilian-- 03:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. I agree that Aminz is editing in good faith, I don't think he is trying to push a particular point of view nearly to the extent represented. Some of the diff's offered in the Evidence are clearly evidence of good faith attempts to improve an article. The fifth point in the disruption of the Christianity argument is most flagrant, the title he tried to replace was at least as badly POV as the replacement he offered. In that same diff, he also adds a section on one of Christianity's most important contributions to modern life that is clearly written in a way favorable of Christianity, certainly not the POV he supposedly is pushing. Here he also adds material that is totally unrelated to his supposed POV to that article only to have it immediately reverted with an inappropriate edit summary. GRBerry 20:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. ITAQALLAH 12:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. Bless sins 04:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. Agree.--Zereshk 18:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. --Pejman47 21:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. Very much agree with this view. (→Netscott) 18:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  16. Str1977 (smile back) 09:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Humus sapiens

I reject Zora's designation "Islam hater" as well as antisemitic rant at the talk page. It is too easy, too simplistic and totally misleading to present this case as "Islam haters vs. Islam lovers", or "Judaism vs. Islam" or "Jews vs. Muslims", thereby turning WP into a battleground.

I suggest we concentrate on the issue, which is Aminz's behavior. Regarding negotiations, please take a look at Talk:Antisemitism (before it's archived) as one example. Aminz-related issues dominated it since November 2006 and as of now, the page is 280kB long. We are here because (thank you Zora) "a definitely rosy view of Islam" by Aminz. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Users that concur with this statement:

  1. Bakaman 03:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --CltFn 03:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Zora's comments are more unhelpful, personalized and inflammatory than anything else being discussed here.Proabivouac 06:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Endorse both Humus' statement and Proabivouac's comment above. Beit Or 09:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Karl Meier 13:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. RunedChozo 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. TewfikTalk 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Arrow740 19:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. Elizmr 10:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. KittyHawker 20:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More-or-less outside view of Palmiro

I've only had a minor involvement in the Antisemitism page, and none in any of the others, and I don't really have the time to look through them, so what I am going to say here is based on what I have seen from that page and from Talk:New antisemitism. Other considerations may apply in relation to the other pages being talked of here.

I feel that Aminz's input on these pages has certainly been quite problematic, but has also been a well-intended attempt to address real problems. That the matter has ended up on RfC seems to me to indicate problems with the editing on those pages that run a lot deeper than Aminz's inputs. I certainly felt there was a genuine bias on some of the pages Aminz attempted to edit. I think there may be a problem with page ownership, reflected in the sometimes hostile and aggressive responses to new editors - not just Aminz - from previous contributors on those pages. Of course, this may also in some cases be an understandable human reaction to Aminz's unfortunate approach. In addition, perfectly reliable sources were attacked - the Encyclopaedia of Islam, an impeccable secondary source, was dismissed by one of the complainants here as "a tertiary source" and it was remarked that "After that quote it doesn't seem trustworthy". One would have hoped that people editing on an article or section of an article regarding Islam would have known what the Encyclopaedia of Islam was, and if they didn't, would seek to inform themselves rather than dismiss it. Similarly, the Journal of Palestine Studies, whose articles are frequently cited in scholarly works, was questioned as a source with remarkable vehemence despite explanations being given.

Tom Harrison speaks of the balance of those pages being unlikely to change unless "number of editors who share Aminz' perceptions start editing Wikipedia". I probably don't share many of Aminz's perceptions, but I can still see that in the case of Islam-related section of Antisemitism he was trying to bring balance to a section that badly needed it. His approach to doing this was unsuccessful, but the edit war that ensued seemed as far as I could see to be between two versions which both suffered from serious bias and failure of methodology. Obviously the best thing to do would have been for him to try and bring in other editors who might try and deal with the matter objectively. It's unfortunate that when he tried to do so he did so through the counterproductive method of unilaterally setting up a poll. It's also unfortunate that other users reacted with such hostility to Aminz doing this, because it seems from the list of people he contacted that he was genuinely trying to reach objective people, not to round up an army of "meatpuppets". In any case, where there is evidence of a genuine problem with an article not reflecting all points of view, perhaps those who have the upper hand in editing battles should give more thought as to whether they are themselves endeavouring to fairly represent all sides of the issue, and to be careful not to succumb to the temptation to take article editing as a zero-sum game. Palmiro | Talk 23:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Zora 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Very even-handed; better comment than my original contribution.
  2. Merzbow 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Feer 13:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I think Palmiro is pointing to this:[117].TruthSpreaderreply 00:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. BozMo talk 14:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. ITAQALLAH 12:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Aminz 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Agree with most of the summary.
  8. Bless sins 15:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by CltFn

My most recent contact with Aminz is when he nominated all of Robert Spencer's books for deletion and left me a note on my talk page inform me of this

I found this odd since the books were quite notable in each case . The net result was a keep for all of the books and a many users mentioning that the nominator was demonstrating bad faith in this wholesale listing of all of Robert Spencer's books for deletion.--CltFn 05:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. a good example of a behavioral issue with this editor. Elizmr 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. This is further evidence that the disruption by this editor was not confined to the articles discussed in this RFC. Beit Or 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. As Elizmr mention above, it's a good example of a behavioral issue with this editor. -- Karl Meier 16:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. If it was in good faith then there must be a purposeful misunderstanding of WP guidelines. Arrow740 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. This is strong evidence of POV-pushing. A2Kafir 02:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Bakaman 20:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Strong evidence of POV issues. Good faith? Izaakb 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bless_sins' view

There are many allegations against User:Aminz. I would like to comment on those centered on the article Islam and antisemitism. The "Edit warring" on the article was not one-sided, as it is presented here, but rather two sided. While Aminz was adding tags, there were users (including Beit Or) who were removing tags despite an unresolved dispute. Secondly, the tags were necessary. The tags ofcourse show that there is a dispute going on and the neutrality and accuracy of the current content is in question. But the tag also allowed us to discuss the article.

In early December, I questioned the authority of a few non-Quranic scholars to interpret the Quran. [118][119] Nobody responded to that. Once again I tried to bring the topic of relevent scholarship up with Beit Or, after he/she stated "You must cite scholars of antisemitism..."[120] Yet once again Beit Or ignored me (and has continued to do so), and pretended that there was no dispute on the article. In mid-December, in the same section, I expressed concern over the biased nature of a few other statements regarding Muhammad, where the context is totally omitted.[121] Yet there was no response or discussion regarding any of this. It was only after the tag was posted did discussion on making the article more NPOV start. In that regard Aminz's edits were not "disruptions" but efforts to improve the neutrality of the article.

In contrast Beit Or has disrupted the article by removing statements sourced to scholars: [122][123][124]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Bless sins 21:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Aminz 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. ALM 10:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Sa.vakilian-- 03:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Pejman47 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. TruthSpreaderreply 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by RunedChozo 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while this was going on, Aminz and Itaqallah are once again tag-team reverting on articles and Aminz is inserting wholesale misleading and badly sourced content with no discussion. RunedChozo 20:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Zereshk

I have known AminZ from the first days when he joined WP. We collaborated on some articles on Islam. I dont agree with some of his positions he has taken regarding some articles. And yet I see this RfC as an obvious attempt to merely silence and bully out editors (like AminZ) that hold an opposing stance on issues. And that is unacceptable and totally out of line with the spirit of WP. AminZ has tremendously contributed to the quality and quantity of WP articles. Calling his editorial disputes a "disruption" is by itself an ad hominem label. A "disruption" of what? Of what our side wants to appear on articles? I propose that the arbiters take a look at the number of disputes where AminZ moderated, or contributed to reaching a compromise. It is sad that an RfC is even allowed to take place for this. This is an abuse of the system.--Zereshk 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Good one. ALM 19:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Aminz 00:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Sharmande kardi Nima jan :)
  3. --Pejman47 16:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. fully agree TruthSpreaderreply 06:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Aminz_add1.html"