Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Timothy Usher (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 10 August 2006 (→Proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Bishonen has not been especially patient with His excellency

I just realized workshop pages tend to be ignored by arbitrators once they've placed proposals there (I'm referring to an apparently unread comment at the RFAr Eternal Equinox workshop), so I'm reposting here my comment on Fred's proposed finding of fact that "Bishonen has been very patient with His excellency":

Nonsense. I'd be gratified if I were commended for general patience and good faith, but this is unjustly phrased at the expense of User:His excellency, as if he were a child to need any particular "patience with". It was no conjuring trick on my part to notice the circumstances and the kind of pressure that provoked him into the "wikiharakiris" and other gestures of frustration. IMO cause and effect lie open and visible to anybody of good faith who has studied the sequence of events, noting especially the timing of the blocks in relation to the heated comments, and noting the withdrawal of such comments, and the harsh "ownership" climate at the Islam articles. His E is rather to be commended for resilience in his efforts to negotiate the barbed wire round those articles and in continuing to edit in circumstances that have driven off so many others. User:Zora comes to mind, and I've just added my own small-scale frustration at Bernard Lewis in my evidence section, as an unimportant but illustrative example. The arbcom needs to consider the toll such a climate takes on the temper of the pushed-out "outsider". I feel distinctly less pleasant for the experience myself. Bishonen | talk 11:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC).

Non-rhetorical question: have you ever stopped to ask yourself how you'd feel were you one of the editors attacked by "His excellency"? I'd be curious to hear your answer.Timothy Usher 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said in Workshop to this duplicate message: H.E. began his campaign of "frustrated" vile personal attacks long before he came near the Islam articles, as my evidence section clearly shows (read the section on his attacks against Celestianpower for some choice quotes). He was not transformed from a decent, hardworking editor because of any "barbed-wire" fence - he brought the same behavior with him from articles like Ann Coulter and Fox News to Islam. His behavior and his problems are solely of his own doing, and to claim otherwise is to treat him as a child instead of as a responsible adult. I honestly cannot fathom your faith in this individual. - Merzbow 22:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

A minor factual correction to myself - as Amibidhrohi he did have early edits to a number of Islam-related articles (none of the ones involved in this dispute), but the vast majority of his edits were to articles like CNN, Fox News, and Ann Coulter, and it is on these articles where his incivility and brutal personal attacks came into full flower. - Merzbow 05:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

But H.E. has a point and it should be heard. Do you guys think Bishon, Zora, I and H.E. are all complaining about a completely non-existent problem? or that all the problems has its roots in H.E's personal attacks? --Aminz 22:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

First, he has engaged in a range of personal attacks and incivility far greater than anyone else has on these articles, in a manner very similar to how he behaved as Amibidhrohi on previous non-Islam articles. This is hard evidence that the real cause of H.E.'s problematic behavior lies within himself, not with the articles. Second, the positions he takes regarding issues of bias by other editors on these articles is consistently 10x more extreme than anyone else to the point where it is clear he cannot work with any other editors ("There's absolutely nothing in the realm of good faith in the works of any of the editors participating in the Islam-related articles" ). That's just one example from my "Misplaced Pages as battleground, conspiracy theories" section. I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing. - Merzbow 00:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are content problems. The most serious problem by far is the lack of any serious scholarship in the majority of Islam-related articles. You've got to have sourced content in order to have something to be neutral about. Otherwise, it's just the proclamation of an informal non-expert committee, and utterly useless to any serious research.

A few editors have solved this problem in a few places. Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly.

The solution is for other editors to read the sources and join the discussion in a sober-minded way to curb perceived excesses in the selection and treatment of sources in a principled and non-arbitrary manner.

"I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." - Merzbow's hit the nail on the head, as usual. Generally speaking, scholars enjoy correcting one another. The more well-informed serious-minded editors there are, of whatever persuasion, the more likely excesses will be uncovered and corrected.

It is wholly unnecessary and unproductive to observe that editors have points of view: the way to check them isn't to denounce other editors, but to inform oneself, argue the specifics, and stay involved.

Whereas more editors are needed, H.E. subverts this goal by driving other editors away. It’s entirely possible that some articles will come to reflect solely H.E.’s point of view, simply because few will be willing to undergo the treatment to which he’ll subject them. I know I’m not, and it looks like Merzbow’s not, either. No content dispute is remotely worth it.Timothy Usher 01:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Merzbow, I agree with you especially on the point "I have yet to see any content-related issues on these articles that cannot be addressed by more editors editing." The point is the cost actually paid. Misplaced Pages works based on consensus and not vote of majority unfortunately. If an editor doesn't want to accept the view of majority, everything stops. This will also discourage other editors. I think we should discuss this somewhere else as it seems irrelavant to this talk page. --Aminz 01:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Timothy, re: "Inevitably, some aspects of these articles reflect their points of view, despite their good-faith efforts to stick to the facts and present them fairly." Timothy, would you please kindly and for the sake of God get the Lewis book from the library and read it yourself. Just first 10-20 pages is enough. You can read it online on books.google.com or amazon.com . I *swear* that you will change your point of view. I have a roommate who has borrowed the book from me (actually by force); he says Lewis always talks bad about Iran and always praises Ottoman empire. He jokes that probably one of Lewis's Jewish ancestors have became an advisor to an Ottoman king since he says Lewis writes very good about Ottomans. (or simply compare this version of Dhimmi article with Jewish Encyclopedia's sentence that brotherhood between Ishmael and Isaac was probably the reason for the tolerance which Muslims almost universally showed to the Jews, or this . Yes at times the situation was bad (e.g. when the Ottoman empire was weak and was under threat at its borders) but that was not the general case) --Aminz 01:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I had read it, though not the whole book, but at least the parts to which you’re referring. The first pages are thoughtful discussion of the meaning of tolerance, the validity of judging the medieval Islamic world by modern standards, as discussed on ]. Lewis is on the mark, but I think Pecher’s right that it’s off-topic. Maybe there’s something else you had in mind. This fix, “While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe”” strikes me equally POV as what it replaced (“were reduced to the status of second-class citizens”), off-topic and more overtly argumentative. I agree, however, that the earlier version was too strident in its choice of wording. But that’s just my opinion. We could continue this discussion on Talk:Dhimmi were it not for the certainty that His excellency would take his attacks to that forum as well.Timothy Usher 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, and you do know that Lewis comments about the very phrase you referenced "the status of second-class subjects citizens(see the article) " that: "At the present time this expression conveys a formal condemnation and has become a catch phrase to denote unacceptable discrimination by a dominant group against other groups in the same society...A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.".

Fine, you think it was a good faith representation of source and as equally POV as "While recognizing the inferior status of dhimmis under Islamic rule, Bernard Lewis holds that in most respects their position was "was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical Christians in medieval Europe". You think using a term that conveys a formal condemnation while knowing that the authur doesn't intend that particular meaning, is a good faith representation of a source! Fine, this is the second point at which I can not continue discussion. You have your POV and I have mine. I don't wish to discuss this with you anymore. --Aminz 02:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The original sentence you are refering to is "Living in areas conquered by Muslims, these people were reduced to the status of second-class subjects and tributaries of a Muslim state." compare it with what Cahen states :"Taxation from the perspective of Dhimmis who came under the Muslim rule was "a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes"". SO, THEY WERE REDUCED TO tributaries of a Muslim state. NICE! --Aminz 02:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed wording: thank you, Fred

I see Fred Bauder has changed the wording of his proposed finding of fact and commendation, perhaps in response to my note above, to remove the overtones I thought it carried. Thank you, Fred, I appreciate that very much, and the compliment too. :-) Bishonen | talk 12:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC).

Statement by H.E.

I'm really tired of this debating. I know I can't expect the arbitrators to do their own investigations into the backgrounds of all allegations. I must stress my evidences page is sorely incomplete. There'd be tons more if I had time to go through every edit they've made in the past 6 or so months. I don't have that kind of time. I simply don't have the time to take on the editing histories of 3 editors. If you dont think there's something wrong with Misplaced Pages telling its Muslim readership that their wives are in fact slaves. or Criticism of Islam being the size of a book, then what can I say? Read Bernard Lewis' books...He doesn't condemn the Dhimmi phenomena, he merely reports on the historic phenomena. He relates the practice as being both oppressive by today's standards, AND as being relatively humane considering what was being practiced by Islam's contemporaries. When I introduce THAT aspect of Lewis' analysis, already documented and discussed on the talk page without anyone opposing it, Merzbow documents it as 'quote dumping' and includes it in his evidence of indictments against me. There is a critique of Robert Spencer that discusses his method of drafting anti-Islamic polemic- that being he selectively cherry-picks through sources to collect and polish those bits that present negative images to the readership. The intent is to create the image that Islam offers nothing of value. It's all beheadings and oppression. My interpretation of the Dhimmi article is that its aim is to suggest Islam is similar to Nazism. As for the 'lacking of scholarship', it has never been my contention that western scholarship should be balanced with eastern one. If the credibility of the scholar can be supported, whether or not he or she is an Arab or a Jew or an American becomes irrelvant. Bat Ye'or isn't a scholar! She doesn't even possess a bachelors degree. Muslim sources ARE excluded. Pecher's already involved in another conflict where he's trying to exclude a very popular biography, an award-winning one in fact, from mention in Battle of Mut'ah. Itaqallah is forced now to open an RFC on that issue. . Apparently unless a book has been reviewed by western scholars/critics, it isn't a book. WP:NPOV makes it clear that euro/western-centrism is not welcome, and that a broad perspective is essential. His Excellency... 18:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As for editors being alienated, being forced to abandon the project, the only real and solid example of such editors is Zora, who had stated that it's the Islam-bashers who've made her lose interest in the project. I'd made several statements expressing my desire to give this up too. I don't because I'm forced to remember how many other editors I'd been disappointed of because they chose to abandon the project rather than address the problem. Bishonen's statement on the Workshop shows she knows what kinds of pressures I'm talking about. Look at what BhaiSaab and Itaqallah have had to put up with. Ever since Timothy Usher's (and company) on WP:Islam fighting over those stupid rules telling Muslim to refrain from saying Salaam or expressing their religious sentiments on their talk pages, that Wikiproject has been almost deserted. His Excellency... 19:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Just please heed what the arbcom tells you. Rejecting it and not abiding by it will not get you far. --Woohookitty 11:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where'd that come from? I never suggested I'd reject Arbcomm's finding. His Excellency... 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy placed on probe for one year ?

Can I believe what I see? --Aminz 22:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised by this proposed finding, in light of this statement of the nature of the dispute which Fred Bauder had proposed some time ago:

"This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Misplaced Pages articles which concern Islam are at issue."

Therefore, I'd not bothered to delve into and rebut the material presented by His excellency, except to the extent he'd baselessly - and falsely - ascribed dark motivations to my involvement in Misplaced Pages. I will, at some point, take a look to get an idea of what the proposing arbitrator might be thinking, and put forth a defense.

Suffice for now to say that maintaining a clean record is, and always has been, more important to me than any content dispute. Had I any inkling, or any warning, that my conduct was in any way in contravention of Misplaced Pages policy, I would certainly have modified it accordingly. Additionally, I've long since withdrawn (6/18) from any of the spaces which were once disputed. No formal sanction is warranted, or necessary.

I've sent an e-mailed to Tony Sidaway in the hopes that it will be made available to the Arbitration Committee.Timothy Usher 00:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Misplaced Pages articles which concern Islam are at issue."

I definitely agree with existence of anti-Islamist bias in Misplaced Pages articles but Timothy hasn't written much neither on Dhimmi, nor on Criticism of Islam article. --Aminz 11:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of my mainspace contributions constituted rewrites of awkward language, rearrangements of article structure, moving off-topic material to articles where it's on-topic, adding links and verifying the accuracy of scriptural references, and, most controversially, substituting well-established English language nomenclature (e.g. "Jesus", "Moses") for their Arabic equivalents (for which I was likewise accused of being on an anti-Muslim "crusade" - the contributor who said this had since apologized). I also believe that several of these articles are too critical, just as there are many - well, far more - Islam-related articles which are not critical at all. In both cases the material was likely added in good faith, by editors who happen to have a point of view. The solution isn't to denounce the editors for their points of view, but to focus on the content (as Aminz, Pecher, and Merzbow do). Editors should be adding sourced material and removing poorly-sourced material from both, and toning down language where it's either too pious or too strident. That bad faith is, as often as not, assumed is a deeply unfortunate aspect of the wikiculture that's evolved in this space.

And I am more than tired of the assumption that there is a fixed and binary divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. The translation issue is an excellent case in point: Aminz, Tom harrison, Striver, myself and others for, Jeremygbyrne, Anonymous editor, Netscott and others against. The most obvious equivalencies, such as that between Allah (lit. "the god") and God, were met with protests from those who believed one language's term to reflect badly upon the other, in both directions. Ultimately, consensus was gained for English language titles, but not before an acrimonious and personalized floor fight likewise premised on the thoughtless assumption of nefarious - and simplistic - motivations.Timothy Usher 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm rather shocked to read this. I hesitate a bit to jump right in, as I'm not familiar with the details of this case, and as I have a very high regard for Bishonen, who seems to be in some way involved with this business. I'll just make two points:

• I have some experience of working with Timothy in the very controversial and often heated Christianity article. His posts can be seen in Archives 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, and I think they show that he's able to collaborate, seek compromise, remain cool, and accept apologies. I have never seen him becoming aggressive. I have also seen him trying to help Alienus in a case where he felt (wrongly, in my view) that Alienus was being treated unfairly. Although I disagree with the support that he gave to that editor, I cannot help noting that he had been one of the victims of Alienus's numerous personal attacks ("your edits suck and so do you") and had usually opposed his edits, so his willingness to try to ensure that Alienus would be treated fairly is very much to his credit.

• I have looked briefly at some of the diffs supplied on the evidence page — for example some one from His Excellency saying that Jews are "a bunch of snots". I have never, ever, ever seen anything even approaching that from Timothy, and I think that putting him on probation for a year — as if his behaviour is the same — sends a terrible message to Wikipedians. I urge arbitrators to reconsider this.

I won't say any more on this issue, because I'm not familiar with the background of this particular case. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher and "EDIT WARRING"!!!!!

DIFFS ??????? I do edit warring. Pecher does. H.E. does. Timothy has been always very hesitant to do it. --Aminz 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Arbitrators, According to my POV, most of the few editwars Timothy Usher has done were when he works on the same article as Pecher works on. He has not been the initiative on any side. --Aminz 11:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems even the arbitrators are split on if the charges of edit warring should be "personalized" and even if the probation remedies should be personalized or not. Regardless, if Timothy is going to be cited for edit warring, so should we all. I don't see sanctionable edit warring as being defined by one or two instances only, but a pattern of disruptive reversions without evidence of an effort to reach consensus (of which I've provided copious evidence of H.E.'s perpetration of more than anyone else). - Merzbow 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Usher and "Incivility"

Dear Arbitrators, I'd like to make some comments about the personal attacks made by "famous" academic scholars just to provide an idea that ("unfortunately") Timothy's most controversial comments are not too far from the norms and standards of comments made by famous scholars in academia. As I said there are differing views among academics ranging from Watt who believes Muhammad was inspired by God, and Margoliouth who believes Muhammad was a charlatan. Margoliouth is not shy to make personal attacks towards Muhammad. As you may know, Ali is a very famous companion of Muhammad. He is loved by all Muslims. Now:

This is how Henri Lammens writes about him:

Lammens describes Ali as "dull-witted and incapable".

He

• Writes "Ali was the least intelligent" and intellectually "incapable".
• Writes of how Ali was "ugly".
• Writes about how Ali was "fat".
• Mocks how Allah wished to keep his representative Muhammad in poverty.
• Writes of Muhammad "kicking Fatima brutally" and telling her to "shut up".
• Writes: "Fatima screamed: You are marrying me off to a beggar" (Ali).
• claims Muhammad's wealth came from "plundering the Jews".
• Doubts the existence of Al Muhsin.
• Accuses Ali of having extramarital affairs and betraying his wife Fatima.

Madelung in his Succession provided a detailed critical analysis on these criticisms.

Now, on the other side of the spectrum we have:

Sir William Muir who writes: "Endowed with a clear intellect, warm in affection, and confiding in friendship, he was from the boyhood devoted heart and soul to the Prophet. Simple, quiet, and unambitious, when in after days he obtained the rule of half of the Moslem world, it was rather thrust upon him than sought."

Thomas Carlyle who writes: "noble-minded...full of affection and fiery daring. Something chivalrous in him; brave as a lion; yet with a grace, a truth and affection worthy of Christian knighthood"

And many others who have praised Ali. Please note how different the range of views are.

My suggestion is that

1. Misplaced Pages needs more precise regulations of how and to what extend editors have the right to use particular academic/unacademic POVs to condemn or praise a person.

2.Timothy Usher counselled to be more sympathetic with Muslim editors and understand their feelings.

3. (this is my personal suggestion) He counselled not to work on any article that Pecher is working on, because he loses his sense of justice in those cases to my mind.

--Aminz 01:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I think wikipedia should not ban scholars like "Henri Lammens" for their views. On the other hand, wikipedia should have precise policies helping editor know where and how they can express their views that may not be liked by others. --Aminz 11:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The arbcom is not judging the scholars. They are judging user conduct. I mean if you use your reasoning, someone could call someone a anti-Jewish name and then say well...scholars say it all of the time. Doesn't work like that. --Woohookitty 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if an academic scholar in a published journal article argues that "Aminz is/was crazy" then this will be a POV, "not" a personal attack on me anymore. --Aminz 22:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I've never called anyone an "anti- name". It's only H.E. who is making this about Muslims. Muhammad is not, after all, a stand-in for anybody else, and anyhow my views are hardly extreme: he was a creative, ideological and political genius whose life, from a contemporary perspective, was not without blemish. I could say much worse of Alexander the Great, who wrought havoc on a far greater scale, who built nothing lasting and whose religion was centered not on God but himself. I suppose I’ve just attacked Macedonians? Entertaining such lines of questioning change the subject just as much as do attacks on contributors, and are unlikely to lead to anything productive. Anyhow, I'm long since through talking about it, as it's quite clear that to do so invites attack, no matter how principled one's outlook. Reasoned discussion, much less consensus, is simply impossible in this environment.Timothy Usher 20:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have to go back to the 19th century to find a parallel to Timothy Usher, that's saying something. In those days, prominent 'scholars' (and government leaders for that matter) also frequently used the N word. Heck, people then owned slaves. It was not conventional at the time to control one's expressions in respect to minorities. It wasn't the convention of the time to presume peoples of such minorities (and indeed 'foreigners') as equals to the superior white stock of Europe or America. In the context of the times, their view on Islam isn't unexpected. Even then, several scholars that you noted found it within themselves to see Islamic history from a neutral perspective. This isn't those times, and Timothy Usher's behaviors cannot be excused by your pointing out to people who died centuries ago who felt as he does. We're not in the 1800s now, and a person with that mindset cannot be allowed to edit Misplaced Pages with the intent of bending Misplaced Pages to his mindset.. His Excellency... 15:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This non-sequitur constitutes the very heart of your indictment. Putting aside the fact that we've never really sat down and talked about religion - you'd probably be very surprised to see how different I am from the demonic picture you've painted of me - criticism of Christianity is not an attack on Christians, nor is criticism of Islam an attack on Muslims. I’ve also expressed my belief that Jesus is not God, one of many points upon which I agree with Muhammad. If I am right, billions of Christians are sorely mistaken. If I’m wrong, then I am. It’s okay to disagree. You are only saying that a person with these ideas cannot edit here, that their contributions to mainspace are to be assumed inherently tainted, and it seems you’ve gained some support for this notion.

Aminz’ idea of encoding this into policy makes sense. It’d be a bad decision for Misplaced Pages to have such a policy, in my opinion, but if we’re to act as if it exists, we should be upfront about it. That would give lawfully-minded editors a chance to comply, deter the involvement of editors who are unlikely to follow the policy, and provide a basis for administrative warnings and actions short of ArbCom.Timothy Usher 21:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You bring this "You know I dont believe Jesus is God" arguement repeatedly as if it's supposed to mean something. What you think Jesus is, is irrelevant. What you think of Muhammad is irrelevant. What's relevant is your insensitive commentary here, a FRACTION of which I documented on my evidences page. Your reverts of content to push a POV. I take strong offense to you telling Bless Sin she shouldn't call Muhammad a prophet, in her own commentaries. I take offense to you harassing Faisal over his user page. I take offense to you VANDALIZING WP:Islam and telling Muslims not to say Salaam, when several users made it crystal clear to you that having the project page state such a thing was deeply offensive. At the time I demonstrated ridiculously good faith and pretended I didn't think you were fully aware that such an order was offensive. Of all the wives that Muhammad had, you take particular interest in Aisha. Why? Ah, I see on the talk page- so you can discuss Muhammad being a 'child molestor' with other Muslims. Your defense of wanton hate speech aimed at offending Muslims. I don't care what you believe, I'm against what you DO, and Netscott and Zora and BhaiSaab can attest to the facts. I don't think you should be on Misplaced Pages. I think your polemics and that of those many editors like yourself are dangerous both to the credibility of Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia of any kind, and in terms of the message that polemic attempts to push on the readership. You should be banned permanently. His Excellency... 23:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My interest in Aisha began at Zora's request that I take a look at it and prevent someone from doing something to it that I can't recall, which didn't involve Aisha's age at all, but I believe some Sunni-Shia debate (by far the more salient of Aisha-related controversies). If you look at what I'm actually said on Talk:Aisha, you'll find me agreeing with Jeremygbyrne that such judgements have no place in mainspace. And I agree with Jeremy that the "Aisha age controversy" is a "figment of Misplaced Pages's collective imagination." My proposal was to remove poorly-sourced material and original research from "both sides," state flatly, matter-of-factly and non-judgementally the age of marriage according to Bukhari and move on. Focussing on the controversy only turned it into a Criticism-type article of the type you've complained about. I even recall complimenting you for one edit wherein you removed just such a poorly-sourced paragraph, an olive branch which was not to be returned. Similarly, I advocated the removal of, and attempted to remove, original argument from "both sides" of Criticism of Islam.Timothy Usher 23:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, my first edits did involve age...but were defending Zora's version against an anon using multiple IPs to exceed 3RR. I must have been thinking about Husayn_ibn_Ali. Apologies. Here are the relevant diffs from 22 April, which I believe to represent my first involvement with this article: , , , , , , , , , , , It is both related to the Sunni-Shia divide and the age controversy. During this period, Zora was being roundly attacked for being anti-Persian and anti-Shia - deeply unfair charges (I recall that this dispute iself went to ArbCom?) - and I felt somewhat obliged to help her out here and there, especially in light of the tactic of using anon addresses to evade 3RR. I suppose that consitutes edit-warring, but what else can you do when anons won't show on talk? Here is the associated discussion, and here is Zora warning me to leave it be lest I be blocked. Not very consistent with your allegations, is it?Timothy Usher 00:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy is a nice and friendly person and fair (as long as Pecher is not involved :) ). Do we want to really miss him? I don't want to lose my candidate for the award of being wikipedia’s selected detective specialized in detection of “sockpuppetry” and “ill-motivations”.--Aminz 00:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Aminz. Although I blew it on one sockpuppet recently, who proved to be of a different puppetmaster than I'd assume. I don't try to look for ill motivations, but I admit the lack of effective day-to-day enforcement of WP:SOCK is frustrating.

And, H.E...take a look at Talk:Aisha#Must delete unsourced material, weak sources and original argument...not too different from (some of) what you've been saying about Criticism of Islam, where, before your attacks drove me out of this space, I'd been attempting to address your complaint about original research. We could have found some common ground here, just as Aminz, Striver, Tom harrison and I found common ground on translations. You could have looked at my entirely sincere compliment and decided to assume my good faith.Timothy Usher 00:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You know full well that the only reason anyone really takes note of Aisha is because of the age controversy. The whole "Muhammad married a child" thing. Nobody is particularly interested in her battle with Ali, etc. What you wanted to do is to remove mention of that 'controversy' and state as a fact that she was 6, despite the presence of views that suggest she was much older. As I said, your entire interest in Aisha was that she was a 6 year old bride. Just as your interest in Muhammad was limited to describing him as a murderer, a war criminal, and a rapist. His Excellency... 16:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

His excellency wrote, "Just as your interest in Muhammad was limited to describing him as a murderer..." - Are you sure?Timothy Usher 00:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "I don't try to look for ill motivations" , I didn't mean it as a bad thing. All of us do it to some extent. Timothy, I have my own bias. I basically wrote this bit based on a few instances that I "personally" didn't like it. They are frequently uploaded into my mind out of my control. They are not related to any editor of wikipedia but rather to Muhammad. One example was your analysis of Muhammad's motivations for the Battle of Khaybar. I think you were quick to detect alleged "ill-motivations" of his there. I think you view history with somehow a negative bias. --Aminz 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I've created a sub-page of my User talk to address the diffs Dmcdevit has presented as evidence of incivility:User talk:Timothy Usher/re proposed finding. I hope this is acceptably within protocol; if not, please let me know if there is a better place to post it.Timothy Usher 23:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Why would Timothy Usher alone be exempt from arbcom review?

Timothy Usher, I don't understand your logic in thinking your conduct safe from arbcom criticism. Arbitration is the most momentous proceeding on Misplaced Pages, and you're an experienced editor; surely you read the few sentences of instruction on the pages before joining in. Your quotation "This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency"... etc isn't some kind of rule or general principle, it's a proposal, from one arbitrator, Fred Bauder. Nobody else has commented on it yet. The actual general principle of arbitration (which I don't doubt Fred subscribes to) is at the top of the Requests for arbitration/His excellency page: "All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute." You are listed as a party on that page, and you have edited it.

• You have taken part quite intensively on the workshop page. That page is headed "This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions", and it carries many proposed findings about you. Didn't those give you any "inkling" that your conduct was under review? Findings are proposed on the workshop page for the purpose of being moved to "Proposed decisions" if an arbitrator has confidence in them. That's what the workshop is for.
• If you really thought His excellency was the only user whose conduct was at issue here, why did you yourself make proposals about other individual users on the workshop page? I see you proposed that I be counseled, and Tom Harrison commended—there may be more (who can face reading through that page?). I welcome arbcom review of my conduct, and I'm sure Tom does, too, but I'm nonplussed at how you can propose decisions about us and yet assume that you yourself— exclusively?—are exempt from such decisions.
• His E has a section devoted to your conduct in his evidence. I have another in mine. Did neither of those give you any inkling that your conduct was being questioned? Did none of the admins and users sharply criticizing your behavior towards me here over my admin actions in this case give you any hint? Intimation? Glimmer? What does it take? Bishonen | talk 21:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC).

I didn't open this case, had no desire to participate in this case, had already withdrawn from the contested spaces, and only showed up because the attacks on my character continued, and continued to be intolerable. My recommendation regarding you was not aimed at harming you; I didn't mean to request any formal sanction, but only that you be asked not to unblock people who are continually attacking others, so that others aren't subject to the abuse to which I've been subjected. I've no desire to prosecute anyone, beyond whatever is necessary to stop the attacks. If that can happen without sanctions, great.Timothy Usher 21:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously not see the point of my example? I'm very indifferent to your proposal that I be "counselled". I only mentioned it as a link in a logical chain. Do you think changing the subject will stop people noticing that you have nothing to the purpose to say? Bishonen | talk 00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC).

I'm pretty sure that the Arbcomm can make decisions on parties whether they participate in this process or not. BhaiSaab 23:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bishonen wrote, "I see you proposed that I be counseled, and Tom Harrison commended" - Did I?.Timothy Usher 22:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, my fault, you didn't propose commending Tom. I carelessly misread the placement of your sig under that proposal. You merely proposed that I be counselled, and merely argued against the proposed commendation of me. Those examples, however, are enough to demonstrate the point I was making: that you're proposing arbcom findings about the conduct of an editor who's not His excellency, and that this makes it a little illogical of you to claim that you thought only his Excellency's conduct to be up for review. Now please don't go off at a tangent about how you didn't mean me any harm. Take it as read, I don't suppose you did, and in any case it's not the point here. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Thanks, Bishonen. I don't know how much clearer I can make this: I don't care what ArbCom finds about H.E. except insofar as it relates to the permanant cessation - and hopefully removal - of his attacks. That's all. If H.E. hadn't continued attacking me throughout this hearing, I wouldn't have bothered to show, out of deference to his restraint. Other than the attacks, I've no issue with either you or His excellency.Timothy Usher 11:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is quite peculiar that His Excellency seems to be the only one who is penalized by the arbCom based on the proposed decisions while many others who are NOT sanctioned constantly distorts information on wikipedia.--Bonafide.hustla 08:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not peculiar at all. H.E. is the only editor who publicly and frequently has made personal attacks. The other editors play by the rules at least on the surface. Pecher has been quite helpful at least for his introducing good academic sources on several articles in wikipedia and for his hard work. Nothing would wikipedia achieve by penalizing him. But I do request Arbcom to give its opinion on the alleged accusations clearly and unambiguously; and similarly on Pecher's complains of me. --Aminz 07:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of the bias problems, but I expect editors of good faith to address them; we don't have to bludgeon everyone. Fred Bauder 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping the proposed decisions page is nowhere close to done. The bias problems are obvious. My evidences illuminates the roles of these particular editors in perpetuating this bias. I think my evidences on Pecher clearly show he deliberately misrepresented texts to push a POV (the relevant talk pages are there for everyone to read, including responses from editors on all both sides of the divide noting his bad faith works), and yet the page so far doesn't even acknowlege that evidence. At this point I'm beginning to feel the evidences I presented haven't even been read. His Excellency... 01:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them, I just concentrated on the most serious violations, yours. Pecher seems to have POV editing problems, which he needs to work on. Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it the position of Arbcom then that even blatant and obvious POV biases, and bad faith editing through the deliberate misrepresentation of sources, are too insignificant to merit response from arbritrators, even to the limited extend of acknowleging such biases and bad faith editings? RFCs didn't address the problems, nor did notifying admins...You're suggesting arbritrators aren't interested in NPOV either. If that's the case, you should've told me at the very beginning that my collecting evidences and participating here was going to be an absolute waste of time. His Excellency... 04:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think arbCom case should penalized all forms of violation instead of trying to simplify the matter by only penalizing selective parties. ArbCom, as of now, fails to address the reason for His excellency's actions (personal attacks). Timothy Usher has been very uncivil and Pecher motives are highly questionable. I urge arbCom to penalized all those who are "part of the problem". Thanks--Bonafide.hustla 05:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about me aside (as I'm writing a response to Dmcdevit's diffs, including both clarifications and apologies), it is a big leap from "Pecher has a POV" to "Pecher's motives are highly questionable." In my experience, everyone here has a POV, including even His excellency. But I don't see any "bad-faith" editors here, only good-faith disagreements. I think it neither fair or warranted to declare a POV equivalent to bad faith. You also neglect the possibility that one might arrive at a certain perspective as a result of their scholarship: it seems to me most unlikely that one who's spent a lot of time studying Jews in Medieval Christendom or the Islamic world will arrive at a particularly favorable impression of either. Like anyone else, most scholars have points of view about the subjects they study. It's a big mistake to say that they must therefore be sanctioned or otherwise excluded from the debate.Timothy Usher 05:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Mark Cohen has a good recent book on dhimmi: Under Crescent and Cross: The Jews in the Middle Ages. I think it worthwhile reading the first chapter. There he explains what he calls two myths: 1. "The Myth of an interfaith utopia" (i.e. the belief that medieval Islam provided a peaceful heaven for the Jews) 2. "The counter-myth of Islamic persecution of Jews". He states that he is convinced that they equally distort the past. I was surprised to see how Israel-Arab conflicts has been influencial on the academic research.

"it seems to me most unlikely that one who's spent a lot of time studying Jews in Medieval Christendom or the Islamic world will arrive at a particularly favorable impression of either." Hey, please separate "Medieval Christendom" & "Medieval the Islamic world"; they are not even comparable. Feel free to dismiss "Medieval the Islamic world" alone by modern standards, but please don't compare it with "Medieval Christendom". In comparison, despite many upsets the Medieval Islamic world was percieved by many Jews as an interfaith utopia for them. --Aminz 06:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Europe was generally worse, as it was as recently as the first half of the infamous twentieth century.Timothy Usher 06:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

And do you agree with Mark Cohen when he writes: "How might we address the underlying historical question in a way that avoids extremes and, at the same time, deepens understanding of why, as most reasonable observers will agree, the Islamic-Jewish relationship bred so much less violence and persecution than relations between Christian and Jews? The comparative approach has seemed the most useful one."? Sorry for bothering you. Just two more questions and I'll be at home. --Aminz 06:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. But my own very original-researchy not-necessarily-neutral feeling is that Dhimmi, Martin Luther and the Jews, Banu Qurayza and Spanish Inquisition should be harsh, Holocaust much harsher, and I have faith that if reliable sources are used and presented neutrally and without original argument, this is the likely result.Timothy Usher 09:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the place to be discussing articles. Evidence of Pecher's bad faith editing are everywhere. The numerous occasions where he changed words or added more damning ones to make sources say things they aren't saying, that isn't just a POV, that's malevolently misleading and bad-faith editing. His Excellency... 15:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"This isn't the place to be discussing articles." - Then why have you repeatedly returned to discussing Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam (among others)? Even holding Pecher and me responsible for the latter, Pecher with his grand total of one edit to this article! I'd thought that at the very core of your statements here was the proposition that your attacks ought be seen as understandable - or even desirable - in light of the sorrily-biased state of Islam-related articles, which you blame on the editors you've attacked. Am I wrong?Timothy Usher 08:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to criticize when you're quite find of mass-deleting almost verbatim quotes from scholarly history books by professors like Friedmann simply because you don't agree with them? Your editing methods are a clear and present danger to this encyclopedia. - Merzbow 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments like "'Timothy's edits are bigoted' are fine; the problem is with 'Timothy, you are a bigot'

Simply because there are scholars like Edward Said who believe "I have not been able to discover any period in European or American history since the Middle Ages in which Islam was generally discussed or thought about outside a framework created by passion, prejudice and political interests." And this can be applied to the edits of almost any European or American editor in wikipedia. It is an academic POV. :) So, the only blame on H.E. is that he directed his criticisms towards Timothy and not his comments. --Aminz 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In reponse Timothy can provide what critics of Edward Said said: "Said's academic critics argued that Said made no attempt to distinguish between the writings of poets such as Goethe (who never even travelled in the East), novelists such as Flaubert (who undertook a brief sojourn in Egypt), discredited mavericks such as Ernest Renan, and serious scholars such as Edward William Lane who were fluent in Arabic and produced work of considerable value: their common European origins and attitudes, according to Said, overrode such considerations" --Aminz 23:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "somebody's edits are bigoted" is fine either, because bigotry is such a loaded word that calling someone's edits bigoted necessarily implies that they are a bigot as well. In contrast, calling somebody's edits "badly-researched", to pick an example of an acceptable comment, implies nothing personally about the editor. - Merzbow 02:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you think "passion, prejudice and political interests" are closer to "badly-researched" or "bigoted"? --Aminz 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Said argues that "their common European origins and attitudes, according to Said, overrode" other considerations. So, as long as Timothy Usher or Merzbow and even H.E. are editing, I am sorry, their works are influenced by their cultural make up. Ha hahaha. But ME! No! ;) Ha ha ha ha! I love it. --Aminz 03:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Spare us the condescending 'forgive them, they're western' rhetoric. These people are educated and informed.They know Islamic texts better than most Muslims do. They're not some midwestern trailor park dwellers who are blind to the world. If they've acted to push a bias, they're fully aware of it and are responsible. And Said never met Timothy Usher. His Excellency... 16:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Even the reddest-necked "trailOr park dweller" can still spell "trailer". Well, maybe not. Never mind. :) - Merzbow 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"midwestern trailor park dwellers"? Tom Harrison 16:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a mission to educate "trailer trash" just as we do to the poor children of Africa. After all, I R 1. Or was, I don't get out enough, so no longer have a red neck, being stuck at this computer as I am. Fred Bauder 13:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

In my opinion, the measures being considered against His excellency are both too strong and too weak. The problem isn't that he's here, or has a POV, but that he attacks people. The current proposed remedy allows him to return and make personal attacks, and to my best reading, provides for limited block periods, which the record shows he's been willing to undergo in exchange for being provided a forum for his attacks. At the same time, it bans him from editting articles, which isn't really necessary. I'm not saying most of his edits are good or bad, or that the POV he represents is reasonable, only that they don't and it doesn’t rise to the level of disciplinary action.

I propose:

• H.E. formally apologizes to all those he's attacked, including Merzbow, Pecher, Tom harrison, Aminz, the arbitration committee and myself.
• H.E. agrees that his attacks should be removed from page histories (this is good for him as well, as others can't later dig them up).
• H.E. promises not to engage in further attacks, either against ethnic groups or other editors.

In return for this,

• H.E.'s ban and general probation are dropped. He should be free to, civilly and using reliable sources, challenge the biases he believes are present, with nothing hanging over his head except the categorical and non-negotiable imperative to avoid personal attacks.
• H.E.'s personal attack parole is very significantly strengthened, such that if he posts even one more attack, he's banned for at least a year.

In a nutshell, let's change the focus from punishment to prevention, and address only the most intolerable behavior. H.E., Merzbow, Pecher, Aminz, Tom harrison, Bishonen, what do you think?Timothy Usher 07:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll agree to that on one condition: you, Pecher and Merzbow agree to accept a permanent ban from editing Islam-related articles. His Excellency... 16:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Can’t speak for Pecher and Merzbow, but for my part, with the exception of a few translation copyedits and a post to Islam about translating the Shahada, I withdrew from participation nearly two months ago. You’ve been editting freely, adding “Salaam!” and the Islamic-green banner to WikiProject Islam, editting Muhammad to remove any mention of him as the founder of Islam, etc. Have I shown up to contest your edits or discuss them on talk? I conceded all this space to you a long time ago, and I told you as much, remember?

It’s totally unfair - users aren’t supposed to be able to drive others away like that - but, hey, life isn’t fair, right?

Let’s start with me, and as Tom harrison and Aminz aren’t mentioned in your demand: I’ll continue to stay away from Islam-related articles, including even standardizing transcriptions and adding links if you like - your call - and you’ll return the favor by apologizing to me, Aminz and Tom harrison for the distress you’ve caused us, agree never to attack any of us ever again, and to the removal of your attacks from the history.

As for Pecher and Merzbow, it would seem that you’re saying you intend to attack them until you’ve driven them off as well. Is there no way you can agree to work with them civilly, or must they, too, withdraw? Well, I’ll let them work it out with you, as it seems you and I have a deal. H.E., your generosity is deeply appreciated.Timothy Usher 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, none has caused me more distress and pain in wikipedia than as Pecher has done(and probably the converse is also true). --Aminz 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Islam page is MUCH nicer now that you've quit your editing to the project page, though the conflict that went on before pretty much has it devoid of participation. The green thing wasn't mine, but I think the page could use some color. There's no such thing as "Islamic-green", btw. The "Salaam" is directed to everyone. Ever been to the mid-east? Hotel concierges often greet everyone with "salaam" as a show of respect to all their guests...The notion that only Muslims should be greeted with "salaam" only adds to the sense of division..So I added "salaam" to the opening sentence, and then went on to add that all editors are welcome, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. As for the Muhammad article, that non-Muslims believe he invented the whole thing is a given. That's why they're not Muslims. There's no reason to explicitly state that in an encyclopedia. I'm happy to hear you're no longer involved in Islam-related pages. His Excellency... 21:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am actually indifferent to H.E.'s case. I am not going to work on criticism of Islam anymore. I have also created a dhimmi article for myself here . I'll edit it for myself whenever I got free. So, I don't think I'll have any conflict with either H.E. or Pecher. And I am not going to be involved into politics either. I may shift into Jesus related articles where I feel there is some lack of mutual understanding between Muslims and Christians (especially regarding the cross & Saint Paul). --Aminz 08:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in an apology from him, only in his future behavior. I do not care if he promises to avoid personal attacks, as long as he can be blocked for progressively longer periods if he does make any, and can be banned if he persists. The personal attacks should be removed in any case. Tom Harrison 13:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Timothy, have you stopped beating your wife yet? Do you think the arbitrators will swallow the picture you paint of HE as an attack machine if only you present it as uncontested truth often enough? I doubt it. They have a fetish for evidence, examples, and diffs, and you've been starving them. Instead you've raised doubts that you know a personal attack when you see one, by your repeated demand that "all the personal attacks" should be removed from this arbitration—from the evidence! If you've ever given an example of what in the evidence it is that you consider "attacks", I've missed it (admittedly possible enough, so you may have, but it sure isn't what you normally do). I'm sorry, but arbitration is about criticizing other people, as harsh and unwiki as that may sound. "Your honor, make the witness shut up, he's saying I did bad things" won't work. If I were you I would seriously be looking to substantiate what I say, instead of this proposal based on the assumption that everybody already agrees with your version. At present you have the worst possible compromise between submitting evidence and not submitting evidence: you have an evidence section, but a worthless one. (So does Pecher, with his handful of antique diffs from when Amibidrohi was a clueless newb.)

Also, arbitration reviews everyone's conduct, so your proposal seems a little limited. Do you have any suggestion for doing something about Pecher's discourtesy, your own incivility and edit warring regarding Islam articles, and harassment of HE (I'm quoting a proposed finding by Dmcdevit) or harassment and disrespect towards me? Have you formed an opinion about this recent unprovoked double-barrelled attack by Merzbow? For instance: Pecher has never spoken to me in a civil tone of ordinary human exchange—or, in a civil tone, period. I don't take it personally, I notice he talks like that to a lot of people, but do you think that's a good thing for the encyclopedia? I presume you see what Aminz says above about distress and pain. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC).

Actually I guess Pecher should have the same feeling towards me. distress and pain! --Aminz 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bishonen; Have I misunderstood, or are you asking for diffs showing His excellency's/Amibidhrohi's personnal attacks? Do you just want those against Timothy Usher, or should I include those against myself as well? Tom Harrison 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Tom. I'm not asking for anything, just advising TU about what the arbcom asks for. See for instance the terse statement at the top of the page here: "Evidence is more useful than comments". Or "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading" here. For example, he hasn't offered any counterevidence to HE's "Timothy Usher" section, or to mine. (Well, I don't think any counterevidence to mine exists, but then I'd be likely to think that.) Of course claims you make need evidence too, but I'm sure you knew that. Btw, when you mention Amibidhrohi... if I may advise again, fresh evidence weighs more than stale, especially if you're making the point that harmful behavior is still going on. The Amibidrohi account hasn't edited since early June. Bishonen | talk 00:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Most of the diffs advanced to demonstrate my incivility are from that same period; do they not likewise grow stale? In any case, I've responded to some of his evidence, and will do respond to more if I get the chance. I've also provided a link to a subpage of my user talk above, where I respond to Dmcdevit's diffs. As for your evidence, I think it aptly reflects the distress which I'd felt as a result of the ongoing attacks.Timothy Usher 01:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I expect they will not rely only on His excellency's (or anyone else's) descriptions, but will read the diffs themselves. I'm glad to know that suits us both. Tom Harrison 01:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading the diffs...yes. For example, Bishonen asks above, "Have you formed an opinion about this recent unprovoked double-barrelled attack by Merzbow?", but all I see is a comment by Tom harrison about careless misrepresentations of edits to Aisha.Timothy Usher 07:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess Bishon has copy/pasted a wrong diff. --Aminz 07:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on that triumph, TU. Bishonen | talk 07:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

Can you outline in more detail which users you think reside in the 'gang' that you think is 'patrolling' the Islam pages? Never mind, you already did. Please stop playing innocent by making hit-and-run attacks of your own like this and then crying 'attack' when your assumption of faith in the editors of these articles is rightly questioned. - Merzbow 13:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an actual gang, so I don't think I can have already done that. I was referring to and quoting what Zora said about feeling like you're facing a gang all alone. I only had one rather brief experience (and have no plans for going back for more), wherein edits and linguistic improvements that I'd spent time on were reverted within the minute—in other words, they weren't read—and everybody who spoke to me was scornful and hostile. Pecher was one of them. I don't know if those people habitually patrol the article. I realize now that they probably thought I was there to troll and stir up trouble, because of my involvement in this case. In reality I was so far from trying to "make" evidence that I didn't even check back to see what had happened to my edit until weeks later— I thought it was so uncontroversial it was bound to be welcomed, regardless of different ways of viewing Lewis and/or Said. I was very surprised it had been reverted. Honestly, Merzbow, I don't regard you as an unreasonable person. I appeal to your sense of justice. Have you read the thread I linked to? Do you really think I was civilly received? That my edits deserved to be reverted on sight? That what was there before was better? Bishonen | talk 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC).

If anything from that thread leaps out at me, it’s this:“The "disgusting ethnic discourse" exists because "certain" people of certain other ethnicities and cultures insist on editing on topics of Islam and Muslims with the intent of pushing their POV.”16:06, 24 July 2006. Any doubt one might have entertained about which “certain other ethnicities” he was talking about was removed when he followed up with, “I certainly do not go about editing on topics on Jewish history or topics of Jewish/Muslim conflict...”.Timothy Usher 21:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)