Jumping on the bandwagon as well here. The previous FA draft of the article was thought to be a well-balanced, well-constructed article about a comparatively little-known group. The current article cannot be said to be either of those things. There is also, as at least indicated by Dbachmann in his edit summary when removing his earlier comment from the arbitration page, the matter of either the good faith, or possibly even competency, of one of the editors involved, which is a concern which could well extend beyond just this article. However, I cannot fault you for recusing yourself if you honestly believe that you may have personal beliefs which would disqualify you from being objective. In fact, if that is the case, I believe you deserve our thanks for your honesty.