Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Proposed decision

message: 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)
thread_title: Changed wording: thank you, Fred

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: Just please heed what the arbcom tells you. Rejecting it and not abiding by it will not get you far. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where'd that come from? I never suggested I'd reject Arbcomm's finding. His Excellency... 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by H.E.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Timothy Usher and "EDIT WARRING"!!!!! 

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

text: "midwestern trailor park dwellers"? Tom Harrison Talk 16:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments like "'Timothy's edits are bigoted' are fine; the problem is with 'Timothy, you are a bigot' 

message: Fred's made it clear he's going to ignore all allegations made in this case except those made against me. I've repeatedly informed him that ethnic differences and representations are not factors in this case. Unlike Publicola, I don't see this dispute as being one between "Muslim and Jew", but rather honest editors and those who wish to promote activist propaganda. Existing WP:policy is sufficient to guarantee neutrality in the articles in question, or at least they would have been if administrators here took any interest in maintaining such policies. Fred's accusation is that my 'overt anti-semitism' makes it impossible for him to hold the other parties responsible for anything. That's ridiculous. Even the parties involved didn't dream up that excuse for overlooking their actions. My 'anti-semitism' amounts to two comments, both on my talk pages, not directed to anyone in particular. The first was the use of the phrase "those Jews". The second, a more reckless one, lasted for all of 1 minute as I self-reverted almost immediately. Generally Wikipedia doesn't punish editors who self-revert their offenses. In contrast, my evidences page points to far many more occasions of attacks against the Muslim community here. My entire arguement has been that these Wikipedia articles are being used to push anti-Islamic activist views and propaganda. I've given the example of Robert Spencer's website forwarding its readers to Wikipedia articles. Timothy Usher has clearly attacked several users, such as IbrahimFaisal and BlessSin using their religions as a soft spot. Fred's expressed his intention to ignore all of this.On talk pages he admit to finding Pecher's works biased, but chooses not to reflect that finding on the Proposed Findings page. What he's suggesting is that he takes 1 comment on Jews (ie the use of the phrase "those Jews") to be more serious than the scores of occasions where clear and obvious anti-Muslim hatred was shown.  This in itself is an extreme bias on his part. He is suggesting that The Jewish Wikipedian warrants far greater protections for slights against him than the Muslim Wikipedian does, even when the attacks against the Muslim community here are far greater in number, far more derogatory, and systemic. In fact, he's suggesting the attacks against Muslims here are utterly negligible. That's racist.  His Excellency... 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have proposed probation for anyone who edits articles which relate to Islam. The possibility of banning for biased editing would apply to anyone who edits in this area, including those you are complaining about. The other arbitrators may single out individuals; I don't intend to do so. Fred Bauder 17:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mean you don't intend to single out editors other than myself. This 'probation' you speak of has no meaning whatsoever. I see no practical use of such a statement. I don't see how a blanket judgement that all editors of Islam-related articles are under probation is actionable. Does that include editors not involved in this case? Should I inform Karl Meir that, as of his next revert to some Islamic article, he's under probation? As an arbitrator, you don't have authority to extend your judgement across all of Wikipedia. Had that been the case, arbitrators could, on a whim, simply invent binding Wikipedia policy that affects all editors. Anyway, it doesn't need saying that it's already against policy to edit in violation of policy. It doesn't need saying that editors violating policy can be blocked. That's already the case. That's a given. While you may intend your statement to imply you're aware and responsive to all abusers of policy, in truth your "probation for anyone" statement is devoid of any meaningful substance.His Excellency... 17:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why doesn't someone make a template to put on the userpages of those who are on probation so admins can easily keep track? BhaiSaab talk 04:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read carefully. Fred isn's suggesting probation on Pecher or anyone else mentioned here. He's limiting punishments to me. In addition, he's suggesting some ad-hoc categorical probation on all editors of Islam-related articles. I've never heard of such a thing. I don't think it's practically actionable at all. His Excellency... 04:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not dispute resolution

message: Look at this fine new section titled "How Muhammad had such a great and significant achievement?". Sorry, that's a mockery of NPOV. Pecher Talk 07:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is something specific to Wikipedia; in addition, see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. We don't say that someone was great and significant, but only state the facts. If someone was great and significant, it must be apparent from the facts. Pecher Talk 07:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say Muhammad was great. I said he had a great achievement (1/4 of the population are Muslims; so Muhammad had a great achievement.) I wasn't evaluating his achievement though. What do you suggest for the heading? --Aminz 08:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aminz's edits to [[Muhammad]] 

message: This edit has four components: 
*The Islamic University of Medina is treated as a reliable academic publisher not just of religious opinion, but of history.
*The word "Byzantine" is replaced by "Roman", because Byzantines are called Romans in Islamic texts.  On talk, it's been asserted that this should trump prevailing English language usage.
*The "Muslim" and "Western" views are set against one another, inviting readers to take a point of view depending on their religion and national origin - compare my suggestion (on talk and in the history) of traditional and academic views.
*The "Muslim view" is duplicated in both sections - though far smaller, the "Western" view is now followed by a rebuttal.
This is a very typical interchange on Islam-related articles.  Also typical is the fact that H.E does not bother to make a showing on the talk page.Timothy Usher 07:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ITAQALLAH 15:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As a result of his edits, the Muslim view is present both in the "Muslim view" section and in the "Western academic view" section. I'm resigning; I can't deal with such editing anymore. Pecher Talk 08:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I just noticed that (and added it to the bullet points above).  The idea that H.E. is only asking for neutrality is perhaps the most absurd pretense put forth during these procedings.Timothy Usher 08:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: just a correction: the IUoM is not considered the publisher, it is dar-us-salaam (the work is claimed to have been published by a number of presses in fact). IUoM is the institution which reviewed and endorsed the publication, as did the muslim world league. naturally the university specialises in all things islam-related, including early islamic history, and it has a research department devoted to seerah (and primarily the analysis of the classic texts) and has produced a number of papers on the topic ( use google trns. to get a rough idea?). we have been debating this on the talk page for a long while, and IMHO i do not believe any of the critiques offered are established or consistent. ITAQALLAH 15:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What the heck? I didn't divide the article into Western v. Muslim perspectives. It's been like that for a while now. I reverted the article to Iqatallah's version because I strongly disagree with exclusion of The Sealed Nectar as a source on the grounds that it isn't a western publication. The only change that can be attributed to me is the adding of the word 'academic' after "Muslim". I dislike the idea that Wikipedia should conclude that Western scholars are academic, while Muslim ones are "traditional". The practice of Muslims of compiling information along with credible bibliographies (ie isnad) goes back to centuries after Muhammad's death. The Hadith and Sira are the sources used both by Muslim scholars and "Western" ones. To suggest that the Western interpretation of the same sources is 'academic' while the Muslim interpretation is just "Muslim" is ridiculous. Amongst Muslims, The Sealed Nectar is considered notable (the book has been well regarded by the IUoM and MWL as Iqatallah points out), scholarly, and credible. Works by Muslim scholars show a POV just as  western works do.  It is not for Wikipedia to endorse one region's or culture's interpretation of texts to the exclusion of others when different interpretations are notable and published. NPOV demands that all sides be adequately represented. His Excellency... 16:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: H.E.'s edits to [[Battle of Mutah]]