Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

User:Jayjg should recuse himself from this case

Jayjg has had significant involvement with the parties I am disputing with, according to his talk page archives and edit history. He is familiar with both Timothy Usher and Pecher. His edit history shows he has been involved in several of the articles in which I too have been in dispute. He had once blocked me for 3RR, and had previously reverted my one of my edits to Pecher's version. He has recently also been involved in an Arbcomm case revolving around changes to the "Israeli Aparthied" article. He's been involved in the "Islam and Anti-Semitism" article, amongst others dealing with Islamic history, particularly the less positive ones. His interests, apparently, are similar to those of myself and the other parties involved, and it is likely he has a POV on the issue as we all do. Though I'm not accusing him of bias, but it would be best that the judges in this case be editors who are not directly familiar with the users involved in this dispute and those who are not personally emotionally invested in the same content disputes that users here may also be. His Excellency... 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC) I went through a bit of his record, and I'm not sure this request is really warranted now. He does seem familiar with T Usher and Pecher, and has edited on several articles I've also been involved in (Islam and Anti-semitism, etc) but hasn't said or done anything that implies a bias. I'll leave it to his judgement whether or not he should recuse himself. His Excellency... 19:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC) According to the Dhimmi edit history, Jayjg had done significant editing work on Dhimmi. Content disputes in Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam are pretty much alot of what this case revolves around.I still think he should consider recusing himself, for the sake of fairness. His Excellency... 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's up to him, but I doubt he has any actual prejudice which would require it. Fred Bauder 21:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I concur.--Bonafide.hustla 04:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Seems to be a non-issue.--Bonafide.hustla 06:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not. I don't see anything that shows a bias by Jayjg. Blocking H.E. does not show bias. He was just doing his job as an admin. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Both Amibidhrohi and His excellency's block logs are impressive, but I cannot see any block done by Jayjg. Pecher ^Talk 19:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding even the appearance of impropriety should be par for the course unless there is a shortage of arbitrators. Publicola 08:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

His excellency restricted from editing

1) For the duration of the arbitration, His excellency is restricted to editing only the arbitration page and his own talkpage. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a soap box

1) Wikipedia is not a medium of advocacy or propaganda of any kind. Editors have an obligation to neutrally reflect on topics and issues, including those that are controversial, but should not demonstrate a pattern of editing that in effect causes an article to reflect a position of advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed His Excellency... 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Avoid bias

2) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed This is different from the NPOV principle as presented in the 'proposed decisions'. What's above is taken directly from WP:NPOV. It is to be noted that NPOV is non-negotiable, even when consensus agrees to take the article in another direction. WP policy is clear that enforcement of policy is by the users. The guidelines that forbids edit warring and other ordinarily even 'disruptive' are reasonable under normal circumstances.Where NPOV was violated so totally that articles turned into propaganda, however, even edit warring (not that I'm guilty of that, I haven't passed 3RR recently) with the intent of bringing neutrality to content can potentially be understood as an action in 'good faith'. I'm not defending incivility or edit warring, but the NPOV problem in these articles should be understood as a a factor contributing to other reactions. His Excellency... 05:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When two opposing points of view arise from a legitimate and intractible dispute, presenting a neutral point of view demands presenting both opposing points of view, and/or explaining the dispute in terms fair to both sides. Publicola 09:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

3) (WP:AGF) To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.

This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed WP:AFG is already mentioned in the 'proposed decisions' page. It is not mentioned, though, that WP policy does not require one to assume good faith where evidence otherwise is overwhelmingly available. What's above is directly quoted from WP:AGF His Excellency... 07:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Don't be rude

4) Being rude, insensitive or petty makes people upset and prevents Wikipedia from working properly. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. --WP:CIVIL

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well, obviously this one will come in to play. I just want to take this opportunity to repeat that this is not the first time that this has been an issue for Muslim contributors. In the US, we have a labor law concept called the "hostile work environment" which occurs, for example, when people leave offensive material in plain view. Because there are far more POV-pushers on one side of the Jewish/Muslim viewpoint divide than the other, a hostile editing environment, so to speak, is created, which infuriates Muslims. Until balance is achieved in the multitude of places where anti-Muslim bias is crept in, I submit that this hostile environment will continue to be the root cause of the observed incivilities by Muslim editors, of which this case is just one of many instances. Again, I urge the Committee to address the root cause, and again, I feel an appropriate remedy for His Excellency's particular set of incivilities would be an assignment to list and publish the worst of the anti-Muslim bias problems on Wikipedia. Publicola 09:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotas and balance

5) Anyone who is willing to abide by our policies is welcome to edit Wikipedia. That includes any number of talented users who hold any sane iewpoint from any ethnic group or even if a imbalance results. It is presumed that users from any ethnic group with any sane viewpoint will comply with core policies such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Nature of dispute

1) This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). As a subsidiary matter His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Wikipedia articles which concern Islam are at issue.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Personal attacks and discourtesy

2) His excellency has regularly engaged in personal attacks, some directed at "The Jews" [1], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_and_incivility. Personal attacks continue to the present, although in somewhat milder form [2].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 12:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I don't see how comments on 'the Jews" can be considered personal attacks. Expression of ethnic or religious prejudice maybe, but nobody was personally targeted. These were generic comments on my talk page, albeit heated and foolish ones. His Excellency... 14:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the difference between wholesale and retail. Fred Bauder 15:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And hot news, Jews are sensitive about anti-Semitism. Fred Bauder 15:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it should be noted that I only made 2 such remarks, 1 of which was only viewable for less than 1 minute. His Excellency... 15:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Reaction to allegations of bias

3) Some users have responded to sweeping claims of racism with attacks of their own: Pecher (Directed at Publicola)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 15:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Inflammatory Language

4) Timothy Usher has repeatedly made remarks, often directed towards Muslims, that were both insensitive and inflammatory. These included such explicit statements such as that Muhammad would have been considered a war criminal, that he 'violated' women, and that he was guilty of murder and torture. [3] [4] Some of these comments were made with the knowlege that they would be recieved as offensive by the Muslims they were directed to.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some diffs showing such remarks? Fred Bauder 15:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

proposed His Excellency... 14:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Timothy Usher regularly violated WP:NPOV

5) Timothy Usher's editings and talk page commentaries demonstrate a pattern of bad faith editing, and in particular, a repeated and deliberate disregard for WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV states the importance of maintaining that 'undue weight' not be given to controversial views, and that articles demonstrate a fair and sympathetic tone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Some diffs showing examples? Fred Bauder 15:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

proposed His Excellency... 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Timothy Usher's behavior demonstrates disregard for "Wikipedia is not a Battleground"

6) Timothy Usher's has repeatedly sought to engage in disputes stemming from his religious or religeo-political views. On talk pages he has repeatedly used his views on current and historical events as either tools of justifying his behaviors on Wikipedia or as means of retort against fellow Muslim editors. [5] [6] [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed His Excellency... 15:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Removal of Pro-Islamic information

7) Merzbow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed information which takes a pro-Islamic point of view on the basis that it constitutes "personal attacks on critics, non-notable sources" [8] and [9]. This in an article which freely cites The Catholic Encyclopedia (1911), an inherently biased source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 18:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Imbalance

8) It is possible that the number and status of the Wikipedia users who favor a pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish point of view exceed that of the Wikipedia users who favor a pro-Arab or pro-Islamic viewpoint, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence#The_real_problem_is_that_POV-pushing_Jews_outnumber.2C_outrank.2C_and_out-collaborate_POV-pushing_Muslims_on_Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed Fred Bauder 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I will propose no remedy other than courtesy and application of good faith effort. Fred Bauder 19:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

His Excellency to compile list of bias problems

1) His Excellency, to atone for his numerous personal attacks, is ordered to compile a list of the articles which he believes exhibit a pro-Jewish or anti-Muslim bias, along with the reasons why for each, so that the list can be published for all to see, and with luck, for many to work on to achive greater balance.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

You must be joking. "The Jews also have more admins in their ranks, so it's considerably easier for them to get page protections and 3RR blocks..." I urge the committee to closely evaluate Publicola's attempt to further frame this issue as a religious/racial conflict between Jews and Muslims. - Merzbow 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not joking, and I'm certainly not the first to refer to this problem in terms of the factions -- the term "Balkan War" was brought up by another party. Even if you discount my analysis (which has been absurdly misrepresented by Merzbow above), the proposed remedy here would unquestionably do the whole project much good, if only to map out the sources of conflict which are something of a mystery to the secular masses. Publicola 07:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Publicola, I suggest you restructure your evidences and observations, and your suggested solutions, for the limited purposes of this dispute. I DO note the anti-Muslim rhetoric and bias, as you do. However, to date I have neither researched nor found conclusions regarding a pro-Jewish bias. Condemnations for Pecher's deliberate misinterpretation of sources have been expressed by members of Wikiproject:Judaism as well, as has been annoyance over Timothy Usher's rewriting of their project page. For the purposes of this article, the number of Jews in Wikipedia or of Jewish admins or their biases are irrelevant. I don't even know that any of the 3 people I am engaged in dispute with here are in fact Jewish. Your observations may be correct, for all I know...However they are not relevant to this particular case. His Excellency... 00:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The arbcom does not adjudicate content disputes. "Bias of articles on Wikipedia" would be considered a content dispute. They look at user's conduct and nothing more. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind engaging in a project dealing with defamation of religions (or ethnicities as the broader problem might be) and the abuse of Wikipedia for promoting prejudice. I don't know if Arbcomm can deal with such an arrangement, but I think it's something that's necessary. His Excellency... 00:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence#The real problem is that POV-pushing Jews outnumber, outrank, and out-collaborate POV-pushing Muslims on Wikipedia for context. Publicola 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See above. The arbcom does not adjudicate such matters nor do they generally take them into consideration. --Woohookitty^(meow) 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

General analysis of H.E.'s evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

At this time I have no detailed comments on the now-enormous amount of additional evidence presented on the evidence page. However, now I can more easily clarify what this case is really about:

"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." - Bishonen [10]

OK, fair enough. But the very first sentence of H.E.'s response leads with:

"My defense is that my ‘incivility’ had been in response to blatant POV-pushing and effective defamation Islam in certain articles here." - H.E. [11]

And then later on in a section titled In My Own Defense:

"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." - H.E. [12]

As I've said, the crux of this matter is H.E.'s incivility, not issues of article content. H.E. clearly wants us to believe his incivility is not really incivility (by putting it in quotes) but a legitimate response to an alleged conspiracy of POV pushers on the Islam page. That's about as far from an apology or a promise to desist that you can get. In a nutshell, what this case is about is whether policies about incivility and personal attacks do not apply when the goal is to address a perceived POV imbalance in articles. I encourage those who may share his ideological concerns about content to think about whether the ends justify the means, because the 'end' of driving all reasonable people he disagrees with off of the articles he edits will surely be achieved if he is allowed to continue. - Merzbow 19:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I acknowlege my actions have violated WP policy. If asked to by the committee, I will make it a point to bring my responses within limits of civility. If banned permanently, I will gladly consider taking up other hobbies. I have gone through significant trouble presenting my case for you, as the length of my response shows. I truly wish that Wikipedia live up to Wales' optimistic senses of its potentials. But if passionate activists are permitted to turn the project into an amplifier of their bigotries, Wikipedia may indeed, and probably should, fail. Going through my evidences, and looking through the articles I mentioned, it should be clear to you by now that my 'conspiracy theories' are nothing more than what's been noticed by many users here, most of them non-Muslim.

I only use 'incivility' in quotation marks when the word is used by people such as those I have been in conflict with here. Merzbow, for instance, has shared communications with both Pecher and Timothy Usher for a long time. He is thoroughly aware of their comments, actions and their editing patterns, as I have posted on the evidence page. Not once has he characterized their actions, their hate speech even, as being incivil. Aminz, whom Merzbow considers a 'good editor', and with whom Merzbow had been working for a while, had himself sought to approach Arbcomm on the matter of Pecher's deliberate misinterpretation of sources and cherry picking of negative messages. Merzbow took no note of that. Defamation is incivility, in my consideration. All that Timothy Usher and Pecher has ever done here has been incivility. Apparently Merzbow's definition of the word 'incivility' is different from mine, and so when I place the word in quotation marks, what I am actually referring to is "the word incivility as Merzbow defines it". As you can see in his list, many of my posts have been misrepresented as violations of policy when they were indeed not (see my responses to all of his points). Call me crazy, but I consider that 'bad faith", and also incivil. I don't contest that he does note occasions where I truly have violated policy. Had it not been for my latest outbursts ("wikiharakiri"), I could have made the convincing arguement that I had significantly resisted the desire to make personal attacks, and that the allegations made against me through the last several 1-week blocks can all be examined and shown to not be violations WP policy at all. Woohookitty's block was certainly unwarranted- his grounds included an AFD, and a conversation between myself and Netscott where no attack was directed at anyone. As Bishonen noted, and as you can examine of my responses after assuming the "His excellency" ID, I've really only adopted harsh language after I had been subject to blocks.

I continue to ask that the committe to address the concerns I've brought forward. This being an encyclopedia project and not a social gathering place, I cannot see how the issues relating to content can be excluded on Merzbow's request from the reaction to it on talk pages. I cannot imagine that the content issues could not take precedence over personal exchanges. It does not seem reasonable to me that issues on article content could take a back seat to the issue of niceness on the talk pages. I've been mentioned on ANIs frequently enough, I've filed ANI requests; and at every chance I had, I tried to draw attention to what was being done to the bodies of the articles I take exception to.

Merzbow repeatedly stresses that the crux of the matter is my 'incivility'. Though many of the cases presented to Arbcomm seem to resemble a judicial trial of an individual, that is not what the Arbitration Committtee meant to be. If Merzbow considers this to be some 'Law And Order' fashioned court proceeding where the prosecution of a single individual is the focal point, he has mistaken the purposes of these meetings. What the 'crux of this matter' is has expanded significantly since the statements of myself and other parties have been added on. I am told by several admins that all sides are heard and all sides are examined. There are 4 involved parties here, and I assume therefore that there can be well more than 4 'cruxes' to consider. I noted eariler, that no RFC or any other early-stage mediation attempt has been made on this particular matter (the RFC Merzbow cites in his request for arbitration was filed by me in regards to the content of Criticism of Islam). Therefore the whole dispute is presented here, and not some segment of it to the exclusion of everything else. The actions of all parties are to be considered, as well as the circumstances in regards to content that I have been reacting to. Merzbow has built his case on what I've said and done since October of last year, in response to persons and articles in which he had no interest, well before he was aware of my participation here. Certainly what I have seen of Wikipedia that has me responding in this way is relevant. His Excellency... 21:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Analysis of Zora's Evidence

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It should be clear that when Zora speaks of non-Muslim NPOV-pushing editors being pushed out of Wikipedia, she's referring to herself. She happens to be Buddhist, and as she explains, she's become fed up with the debates and arguements with the POV-pushers trying to present a negative image of Islam.. "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." She's had a long conflict with those editors, and noted, as I have, the overwhelming force they've put up to present articles in the most biased and polarizing fashion. His Excellency... 18:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again I must fact-check you. I don't recall interacting with this Zora in any article anywhere, much less push her out of any. - Merzbow

I edited to correct for that. When she said "the editors pursuing the case against him" I assumed that to include you. Sorry for that. His Excellency... 21:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I interacted with Zora on many occasions and usually in a positive way. The only negative experience I had with her was on Talk:Muhammad, where she poured much abuse on me, for daring to argue with reliable sources that Muhammad's wife Aisha was 9 years old at the time of marriage. Zora was subsequently blocked for 3RR on Muhammad; if that's what drove her away, then I don't know how anyone, except her, can be guilty of that. Anyway, all of that has no connection to this case. Pecher ^Talk 20:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Timothy Usher's Evidences

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Users have their political and social views. The statements Timothy Usher has listed, which I believe Merzbow listed already, are my views, expressed in conversation on my talk page. These particular comments were made after another, what I considered unfounded, block. They were therefore heated remarks more stern than I would ordinarily have expressed them. I am highly skeptical of Western evaluations of Islamic history. This isn't just my view, but that of many scholars, most notably Edward Said; who terms the phenomena as "orientalism". I don't think most Western, Christian or Jewish, scholars have been even-handed or truly neutral in their interpretations of Islam. Those who list themselves as skeptics (e.g. Robert Spencer) 'cherry pick' the worst instances or look for the worst interpretation of facts, while those who are apologetic (Karen Armstrong) lose credibility because they refuse to be critical. The editors on Wikipedia have largely followed suit. In both Muhammad and [Battle of Mutah, distinctions had been made between "Muslim scholarship" and "Academic scholarship", as if to say Muslims were never academic. This despite it being universally known that what we now call 'academic scholarship' is actually a western evaluation of Muslim sources.

I know WIkipedia isn't a 'paper encyclopedia'. But it's essential to compare the articles with which I have a problem, with other articles from credible acedemic sources. There's a massive difference. Where most credible scholars would at least feel the obligation to evaluate Middle Eastern history in the context of a certain time, the evaluation of Islam on Wikipedia here is highly judgemental, with little regard for context. I'd ask people to compare Wikipedia's Islam-related articles to any other modern mainstream encyclopedia. There's a difference.

I do get upset that Muslims now rely on the West for security, social and economic development, and now scholarship, and I voiced that. Yes, a verse of the Quran even warns against reliance on others, and I stated that. It's a political view maybe, a social view, and maybe not one agreed to by most WP members who come from the West. It should be quite obvious by now the context in which such comments were made- the overwhelmingly condescending approach to Islam by some editors. I don't believe in censorship. Not the best use of my talk page, you might say? Probably not. But there's no clear violation of WP policy in that , and therefore isn't relevant to an Arbcomm proceeding and my statements have not been taken negatively by any admin or fellow user as yet. His Excellency... 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tom Harrison's evidences

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

He notes my complaint that his behavior amounted to something similar to racism. In ANI discussions, he expressed his objection to an indefinite block on a user who displayed, on his user page, two images- one of a pig with the name "Allah" superimposed on it in Arabic, another picture of a US soldier torturing an Iraqi prisoner in Abu Ghraib, followed by a crude and insulting joke. This user, "FairNBalanced" then joined Wikiproject:Islam so that his display would be in full view of Muslim editors. This is an editor who frequently edits on Islam-related articles. [13] To any objective observer, and to most editors on the ANI discussion other than Timothy Usher, Pecher, and Tom Harrison, this deliberate display of hate warrants strong measures. Tom felt the indef block would be too harsh. He did however indefinitely block me for calling Timothy a 'bigot'. I found the selectivity in distinguishing when to be severe and when to be forgiving troublesome.

On his allegation of 'continuing personal attacks', his quoting of one of my remarks on Timothy's produced works as an act of 'personal attack' demonstrates either his failure to distinguish between a critique and a personal attack, or opportunism seeking to find any possible excuse to provide condemning 'evidence' . "And yes, these comments strongly suggest your editings constitute works of bigotry. " Yes, this is a scathing review of an editor's product on Wikipedia, but it is not a personal attack. My evidences on Timothy Usher should be make it evident that such reviews are not unwarranted. His Excellency... 15:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Possibly too soon for this, but I'll comment based on my impression of the discussion at Talk:Criticism of Islam when responding to the RFC there, watching it for a few days more, and then reading it again tonight. I formed the impression that His Excellency reached a conclusion before he first put fingers to keyboard, and then lacked openness to considering alternatives, compromises, or the possibility that he was in error. I formed the impression that Merzbow was sincerely trying to improve the article, and was doing a good job along with Aminz of researching and reworking the article. I was quite happy to let their work proceed without taking any further action in regard to the RFC that His Excellency had raised. I saw Merzbow's work in a couple of other places subsequently, and marked him down on my mental list of editors that might be a good source of help for me. I leard of this arbitration when I went to ask him for some help earlier tonight. I have no recollection of any other significant encounter with those involved in this arbitration, nor any particular desire to wade through the screens of evidence presented. GRBerry 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

GRBerry is probably the only person to have responded to my first RFC on "Criticism of Islam". It was my first filed RFC, so I didn't know that I was supposed to type it out to represent a general view and not my own. The tone of my statement reflected my perspective. Merzbow later edited to reflect his (note it wasn't changed to anything neutral). I didn't care- I just wanted people to look at the article. A look at my evidences will clearly illustrate that my views on the article weren't impulsive, but thought out and reasoned.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and every one of its articles should give the impression that it is a presentation derived from a credible encyclopedia. The Criticism of Islam article does not resemble an ecyclopedic entry. Even now, I'm observing it and editing it to exclude 'original research', written in as if the article is meant to be a piece of investigative reporting. The depth of analysis into every single criticism made against Islam, or Muhammad or the Quran is something not seen in most encyclopedia entries. Compare with Encyclopedia Brittanica or Encarta if you wish.The article is titled "Criticism of Islam", but in the eyes of Usher and Pecher and Merzbow, the article is actually "All that is Wrong with Islam". An illustration of this: one would think that a general analysis of critics would be a legitimate, if not important view for the article to present. "Who criticizes Islam and why do they critisize". There are academic critics like Bernard Lewis who had been studying Islam all his life, and has made reasoned and informed observations of Islam that many Muslims might find disagreeable. There ARE those who criticize Islam for political and religious reasons. I felt a "Criticisms of Critics" section would bring perspective, as well as neutrality by illumanating observations of WHY critics criticize. There's plenty of verifiable sources to base such a section on. The responses ARE notable. Daniel Pipes had been criticized by people such as Ted Kennedy and Christopher Hitchens; Bat Ye'or's credibility has been questioned by most academically credible observers who bother to take note of her, including Bernard Lewis. This all deserved mention in an article that had previously presumed the allegations (I'd call it defamation) of these critics as fact. On the Talk Page of Criticism of Islam, Merzbow expressed the desire to 'nuke' that section altogether. For the article to reflect analysis of the critics and their motives apparently was beyond acceptability. His Excellency... 19:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You name all these famous people who supposedly have criticized these critics, yet all you were able to come up with was virulent screeds from nobodies on non-notable web-zines. Hardly encyclopedic. - Merzbow 20:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Beliefnet.com has been reviewed by major newspapers, it's been mentioned by Irshad Manji in her book. Notability is what determines what is included here, and the content of Beliefnet.com is fairly notable. I could expand the section easily enough to include Hitchen's comments and Kennedy's, but you've already explained you don't want comments critisizing the critics in the article. Being fed up with games, I didn't bother pushing those forward. His Excellency... 19:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was like, irrelevant. Neither of the two disputed sources you provided for the criticisms against Robert Spencer were from belief.net. (See [14]). They were from sources even less notable than that, one of which is fond of posting political screeds against Wikipedia. - Merzbow 22:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, beliefnet was the subject of another dispute. Another source you summarily dismissed as 'non-notable'. Another 'screed' as you describe these sources. The beliefnet matter is noted in 'evidences'. Your objection to this source is ridiculous, if I might say so. The content I added, that you refer to, is "The Council on American-Islamic Relations characterizes Pipes' works as "troubling bigotry towards Muslims and Islam". To support it, I use a source as reference, that source being the CAIR official website. There could be no better source for the content I added in. As for Robert Spencer, the sources cited were adequate for the content I included, which was that some have criticized Robert Spencer. This being an opinion and not a fact, I gave the source of the opinion- MediaMonitors.net, which has been operating and publishing articles for over 6 years. The other is also an established magazine. Such publications are not as popular as the NY Times, but the NY Times doesn't address these kinds of topics. I see no problem with my use of sources here. Given so many of the source you don't take exception to are personalities and books which amount to hate-driven activism, I see no reason why you complain on these. His Excellency... 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In other words, you're willing to lower your standards as far as is necessary to dig up a source that addresses the 'kinds of topics' you're looking for, in this case the topic apparently being personal attacks on authors you disagree with. If you're going to publish malignant statements about an author, your source had better be of greater quality than the average for the article you're editing, not lower. - Merzbow 06:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The source stated the existence of criticisms regarding certain critics. The sources were publications, not blogs or discussion forums. The information added in was limited to the criticisms expressed in those articles. The article as you have it structred shows NO such criticism. The article as you'd prefer it would offer no review of the history or tactics of these critics. As such, the article as you'd prefer it would violate WP:NPOV. In the absense of any source documenting a review or response to these critics, I used what I found first, after taking note of their quality. My addition would have improved the article from what it is now- which thanks to you is mostly propaganda. I won't pretend to assume you're ignorant of WP:RS, and so I won't give you the benefit of the doubt. The use of sources from anti-religious activists or groups is prohibited. And yet this article refers to the likes of Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, and Robert Spencer (founder of jihadwatch.com). Your protection of these sources, and your cheap tactic of censoring criticisms of them by labeling all criticisms as "personal attacks" is part of the reason why the article's quality is as foul as it is. His Excellency... 20:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if you can't find a reliable source that says what you want, then the problem is not with the article, the problem is with the notability of your POV. I'm sure there are plently of articles in rock-solid sources like the NYT that criticize Spencer (the bestseller Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam must have been reviewed widely). However, I'm also betting they don't use terms like "Muslim-basher". Either you're not willing to do the research to dig up these solid sources or you're dead-set on referring to these critics using libelous language like "Muslim-basher", language that no reliable source will print. That's the only explanation for your editing behavior I can come up with. - Merzbow 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find mention of him on NYT. On Amazon, the most notable reviewers of that particular book are: Michele Malkin, Bat Ye'or, Ibn Warraq, and such. Speaks to his notability as a source. He is nothing more than a rabid bigot, like Bat Ye'or whose words you accept is fact. His ideas, so far, are only particularly noteworthy to those fractions of the readership which takes keen interests in the subject of Islamophobic hate speech, either by promoting it or opposing it. Since everyone editing Criticism of Islam falls into one of those two categories, those editing the article may have bloated notions as to the credibility of people like Robert Spencer. His Excellency... 06:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference (established in Wikipedia policy) between attacking an ideology and attacking a person. In fact, the ability to understand this difference is essentially what this case is about. - Merzbow 17:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

So content calling Muhammad a PERVERT and a PEDOPHILE would be against WP policy? By what logic are reviews of Robert Spencer's works to be censored while insults against Muhammad from some totally unknown sources (ie Jerry Vines) are to be included? Strange that you've never acted on that realization when the target were Muslim figures. "Established in WP policy"... I'd like evidence of this policy you say that's 'established' that attacking ideologies is somehow more acceptable than attacking individuals. I'd like to see evidence where defamation of a religion in endorsed. The tone of the articles you work on violates WP:NOT in that WP is effectively a soap box for anti-Islamic views. WP:NPOV mentions that the use of anti-religious sources is frowned upon, a bit of policy you've repeatedly ignored.Also, mentioning reviews of known polemicists isn'r actually 'attacking' if the content is phrased properly. Once again, a rather selective application of policy. His Excellency... 19:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP, which also addresses criticism of individuals anywhere in Wikipedia as well as in biography pages. "Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)." Conveniently enough one of your two Spencer sources is an obscure newspaper, and the other is a partisan website. - Merzbow 07:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E. wrote, "The article is titled "Criticism of Islam", but in the eyes of Usher and Pecher and Merzbow, the article is actually "All that is Wrong with Islam"." He's constantly returned to this article, the main author of which to my knowledge is Aminz, and recently, Merzbow. My primary involvement was to add links to Qur'anic cites. I don't recall that Pecher has played any significant role here, either. Yet somehow H.E. presumes to know what the article is "in [my] eyes".Timothy Usher 09:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny..Edit history suggests about 62 edits from you (rough count). - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by His excellency (talk • contribs) 2006-07-26 13:27:35 (UTC)

Searching the Edit history statistics for Criticism of Islam shows Aminz in first place with 682 edits, Merzbow second with 160. Timothy Usher is in sixth place with 62 edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that Pecher has made a grand total of one edit to this article.Timothy Usher 03:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, you forget that you, me, and Pecher are actually the same person. That is how "Pecher and Timothy Usher and Merzbow" came to decimate so many good articles in the same way. - Merzbow 06:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you don't see things THAT differently than I do. You filed this Arbcomm report listing Timothy Usher and Pecher as fellow involved parties, apparently without going far in consulting them first. Timothy's suddenly become very shy in his participation and has made it quite clear he wants to be nowhere close to this, and Pecher's demanding that he not be put under the same microscope. My evidences illustrate well enough how often your works overlaps, particularly in Dhimmi. It's not meatpuppetry per se, but the bias pushing has been a collaborative effort between many users, some not mentioned here. I'll admit, the tactics are so similar across so many articles, I do sometimes mistake one for another. Dhimmi is essentially a fork off Criticism of Islam, even if it wasn't supposed to be. His Excellency... 16:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks, H.E. states that I am not a good representative of the Muslim community. There is lots of truth in it. I think it is true that I am only a representative of a minority of my religous community. I like the works of peoples like Abdolkarim Soroush (who is hated by many religous characters in Iran). I do agree with H.E.'s point on my talk page. I do not necessarily follow what a typical person from the majority of the shia community does. This is an important point. In fairness, I, myself, have requested another persian editor to post comments on this page. --Aminz 00:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't state that you're "not a good representative of the Muslim community". I don't know what kind of Muslim you are. I took strong exception to you saying "I'm a Muslim and I support this article". I asked you to refrain from doing that. This "Muslim stamp of approval" business, I dislike; particularly when the defamatory tone to the article is unmistakable to any neutral reader who bothers to read the articles you endorse. What I did say is that I find your defense of Timothy Usher incomprehensible, and I do. Your evidences in this case are limited to your talk page discussions. We already know Usher and you are friends, exchanging 'barnstars' and all. Obviously he opted to take a civil, if insincere, tone with you. You're asking us to judge his works by his exchanges with you alone.

You say of his "style": "the style is not the style of an anti-Muslim bigot, but the style of a thinker". Bigots are thinkers too. Some are even rational thinkers.There are plenty of thoughtful members of the KKK in America- doctors and engineers and political and philosophical and religious figures. Look at his edits and commentary on the articles he involves himself in. Look at how he supported FNB's display of a pig with "Allah" superimposed on it. Isn't it blindingly obvious what his purpose and objectives have been here? Has he shown an ounce of goodwill to Muslims other than yourself? Netscott has addressed him on his problem openly, as did Bhaisaab and Faisal. Muslim or non-Muslim, everyone with an ounce of objectivity sees his works for what they are. He doesn't hide it. Yet you plead ignorance.His Excellency... 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

H.E., since your attacks of the 18th of June - well before your ArbCom case - I've retired from any of these articles you're angry about. Yet you still relentlessly attack me. I've long since ceded all space to you, not out of principle, but after the practicle observable fact that Wikipedia allows your personal attacks to continue. Thanks to Bishonen, you were allowed to do this, and I had to leave. You won. Why do you continue? Please stop.Timothy Usher 12:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, looking at your edit history, you did continue to edit on other articles pushing the same POV, just not the same ones I was involved in. I wonder why you would take a keen interest in Aisha? What of his other wives? Why not the article on his nephew? What is it about Aisha that has you so interested? Ah, I see..It's the whole "Muhammad married a 6 yr old thing". So much of your participation in Wikipedia had been devoted to the defamation of Islam and everything related to it. I don't know you personally, I just know your works. I have been critical of them, and the pattern they follow.

Except for my use of the word 'bigot' that one occasion, the remainder of my less-than-friendly comments haven't been personal attacks. By British parliamentary standards, nothing I said would have been considered blameworthy. Same by the standards of the US congress. Given the punishments I've suffered here for comments, it seems Wikipedia has an ad hoc definition of "personal attack" and "incivility", definitions that have never been elaborated. His Excellency... 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"Except for my use of the word 'bigot' that one occasion, the remainder of my less-than-friendly comments haven't been personal attacks."

• 04:20, 19 June 2006, "I do believe the selective sense of offense shown by Tom harrison here and Netscott is equatable to racism,of course save that Muslims aren't in fact a race. Aside from that technicality, the root sentiment is the same."
• 02:40, 9 July 2006, "Aminz is the Muslim to perch on your shoulder so you feel less guilty for being a bigot"
• 06:55 9 July 2006, "you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion."
• 14:54 21 July 2006, "People have noted the hatred in his rhetoric and his edits. Faisal, BhaiSaab, Netscott, and several others. I've noticed his sweet words in discussion with you, but aside from that, he's never been civil with a Muslim here."
• 15:09, 22 July 2006, "What would a bigot do? And what have they done and what have they been doing?"

Maybe that short list is not representative; certainly it is incomplete. I'm sure people will read the evidence and judge for themselves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the question is whether I've made comments against other users, yes I have. I was speaking in of my comments directy at Usher. The first one you posted is to Merzbow, and ugly as the comment may seem, it's pretty accurate. I do think Merzbow and Usher are using Aminz. I acknowlege the comment I made directed to Aminz in my evidences. Aminz approached me on the topic of Timothy being a bigot, using the word himself..I didn't shy away from explaining my reasons and the evidence I know of. His Excellency... 19:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)