User talk:Timothy Usher/re proposed finding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• I wrote, “Netscott, you're great, but everything you say is totally stupid. Note that I didn't personally attack you, I am only commenting on your contributions. I hope you appreciate this distinction, and see my point. You're kidding yourself if you think you can talk to people this way and not offend.” [1]

This diff is being seriously misinterpreted. The most obvious reading of this paragraph takes the first three sentences together as a unit - I am making a point, and one that doesn’t make any serious charge against Netshott. It’s not reasonable to construe this as an assertion that everything Netscott says is stupid.

Rather, as may be discerned by reading the sentence immediately previous to my edit, I’d objected to Netscott’s repeated description of (many) other editors’ edits as “asinine”, and attempting to explain how this is easily interpretable as a personal attack (just as if their edits were called “infantile”, “moronic”, etc.) Anyone who’s followed his contributions is likely to have noticed the frequency of “asinine”. I find this demeaning and incivil, and should hope that he uses this term less often. That’s all.

• I wrote, “And hey, since we’re chatting: don’t act as Amibidhrohi’s meatpuppet, as you did on Dhimmi”[2].

The post that led his involvement solicited more “Muslim participation” to combat “Jewish and Christian authors with axes to grind”, [3], [4], and the edit summary to the thusly-solicited assistance, “Amibidhrohi's version is better”[5]. I can’t remember this editor bothering to show on talk; there was no pretense of anything than responding to Amibidhrohi’s overtly sectarian call for assistance.

I agree that my wording was incivil, and, for that, I apologize to BhaiSaab. Netscott advised me away from the use of “meatpuppet”, and upon consideration I realized he had a point. Were I to rephrase this now, it would be to say that Amibidhrohi’s call to fight Jews and Christians was deeply inappropriate, and I’m disappointed that BhaiSaab responded to it. This would have assumed BhaiSaab’s good faith in a way that “meatpuppet” does not.

It takes a lot to realize a mistake and apologize, and I accept Timothy Usher's apology. Thank you. BhaiSaab ^talk 02:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• I wrote, “This "rebel warrior" (Google Ami Bidhrohi) is out of control.”08:40, 7 June 2006.

Consider what had just occurred:17:02, 6 June 2006,[6],[7], [8],[9], [10],04:17, 7 June 2006.

Ami Bidrohi (yes, I’d misspelled it, but the other spelling turns up nothing except his User page and, oddly, my comment to Tom’s page) is the title of a well-known song influenced by the poetry of Nazrul Islam, which begins, “Ami bidrohi/I the rebel warrior”. It was not an attempt to track him down, as he’s alleged, just identifying the reference. Perhaps incivil insofar as reference to the lyrics was meant to suggest an insight into the psychology behind his choice of user name.

• I wrote, “May I ask if you consider yourself a bigot?”[11].

H.E. had just written to Aminz, “...(the term I used was the more meaningful, and I still believe accurate, "bigot" against a certain someone)...”04:43, 8 July 2006, having relentlessly attacked me along these lines across a number of pages for the preceding three weeks.

My question was a sincere - and relatively civil - invitation to reflection. H.E scries for oblique traces of bigotry in others while overtly denouncing Jews, Christians, Muslims, Anglos and Americans and taking swipes at myriad demographics including homosexuals, and now, Midwesterners. I thought some self-examination was (and still is) in order, as it often is for any of us. His answer: [12]. I then concluded that such invitations were futile, and I don’t believe I’ve posted there since.

• I wrote, “Be advised that User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi, who has amassed an impressive block log for 3RR, personal attacks, harrassment, disruption and incivility.”[13]

I’d identified a new username with a known one, a legitimate aim. I agree that I did this too brusquely. Consider, however, that the block from which he’d just returned had been extended for attacks against various ethnicities, personal attacks on me, and a snarky comment placed on my user page:[14],[15],[16], [17],[18], [19],[20].

I was therefore alarmed to see him popping up under the new username onto several threads in which I was already involved, in which he’d never appeared before, not just WP:ANI but also Talk:Israeli Apartheid (since retitled - here is the thread [21]), to which one might reasonably conclude he’d followed me (though I didn't have any problem with his posts there to per se). On WP:ANI, he immediately steered a conversation which had originally been about FairNBalanced to a personal indictment of me, demonstrating my concern to have been well-founded. Additionally, I found H.E.’s statement, “The exceptionally corrosive nature of his edits and commentary makes an indefinite block appropriate” startlingly hypocritical considering his own well-documented track record of overtly racist (etc.) commentary.

In retrospect, by immediately pointing out his past behavior, I made it possible for onlookers unaware of the recent Amibodhrohi history to see me as the aggressor. I should have extended him the benefit of the doubt.

• It is an unfortunate fact that I wrote the following:[22]

I regret this diff, which followed the logic of strident polemic rather than that of coherent and measured thought, and contributed nothing worthwhile to Wikipedia. I had no business posting in such a foul mood, and have since found stepping away from the keyboard the healthiest solution. For this, I can only apologize, just as I’d apologized to Wikipidian [23] for a similarly-heated (though not quite as bad) comment (his response) in June, and even, though less generously, to His excellency [24]. (His response [25], [26]).

I cannot apologize for my assessment of Muhammad’s treatment of the Jews, or for my heartfelt objection to the notion that his life provides us an exemplar in this regard, a notion which is not without observable real-world consequences. I do, however, recognize that expressing this upsets some editors. I don’t feel at all good about having upset people, even where what I’ve said I think valid and true.

I’d like to avoid discussing Muhammad entirely, for awhile if not forever, and leave the assessment of his character to others, as I’ve attempted to do for nearly two months now (although I am still being solicited to engage in Muhammad-related discussion on my talk page).

• I wrote, “Had you stopped to consider that FNB's Zarqawi statements and the Abu Ghraib post - misguided as the latter was - might be ascribed not to hatred of Islam, but to hatred of Al-Qaeda? Had you considered that the depiction of Muhammad was a reaction not to Islam, but to cartoon rioters? You insist on taking the least nuanced, most condemnational interpretation possible, and one that doesn't show an adequate understanding of American discourse. You've been Karl Meiering this guy. We're in a war, you know. We were attacked. I understand this is itself a simplistic statement, but it's a simplicity a very large number of people would sign onto.”[27], [28]

I’m not at seeing what’s said to be incivil about this statement. Netscott was assuming that FairNBalanced’s flamebaiting was motivated by a deep hatred of Muslims. I think this a misreading of the psychology and rhetoric of the American right, and said as much. I offered a principled (and politically unpopular) defense of another user against what I saw as unduly gratuituous and assumptive prosecution. The record shows that I’ve offered a number of these for editors representing a wide range of perspectives, some very substantially different from my own, where I’ve felt the pile-on has itself become unseemly.

In several of the examples above, I agree that my civility quotient was, at times, not where it should have been. I don't, however, believe I stand out in this regard, or merit any formal sanction such as probation. Why was I neither warned nor blocked for any of these comments? Why not mediation, or an RfC? Without agreeing that I should have been blocked, such remedies are more typical than probation, and would have given me the opportunity to reflect upon and correct/desist from the disputed behavior.Timothy Usher