User talk:Wherestheoutrage/archive

Evidence provided by His Excellency
My defense is that my ‘incivility’ had been in response to blatant POV-pushing and effective defamation Islam in certain articles here. Where I have responded with expressed outrage (not that such expression is generally acceptable), most Muslims have responded by abandoning Wikipedia altogether. Of the members of WP:Islam, only 3 or so actually bother to participate in what has become a forum dominated by individuals seeking to vilify the religion of Islam, the history of Muslims, and even their current circumstances.

My case is limited to these three individuals. Here is evidence of those assertions, separately presented on each individual. There are many more involved in this POV campaign, but this response is of course limited to the three others mentioned here. All these users are experienced, and have demonstrated thorough knowledge of WP policies. It would therefore be unreasonable to attribute their deviations from norms as ignorance of WP policy. This entry is not comprehensive, as I do not have the time,nor frankly, the will, to produce what would be a single comprehensive account of the detriment to Wikipedia that stems from the selective recollection of history and current-events demonstrated on Wikipedia because of the presence of these individuals. Of the three, my case against Usher and Pecher is more solid, as their antipathy towards Islam and Muslims (both in general and against Muslim editors here), expressed and implicit through their editorial contributions, has been more visible, and it's against them I would like to see measures being taken. I have had some heated conflicts with Merzbow, but at least at this time, I neither see the explicit bias or expressed antipathy to warrant strong measures being enforced against him.

I would suggest you view for yourself the quality of the following articles, as well as follow the commentary on the talk pages:

Dhimmi,Banu Nadir,Criticism of Islam,Safiyya_bint_Huyayy,Kinana_ibn_al-Rabi, CAIR, Battle of Mutah,Islam in the United States

Recognition of a problem on Wikipedia articles by other users:

Mediation Cabal case on Banu Nadir, Timothy Usher and Pecher make two of the three involved on one side: 

Outside Wikipedia: Recognition of a 'conflict'on Wikipedia by Islamophobe Robert Spencer himself: The Independent Center for Strategic Studies and Analysis:

T. Usher
'' My statements are supported by samples of his contributions and responses to them, going back a few monnths. This is by no means the whole of his record, but hopefully enough to make the point that this editor has contributed to an extreme disruption, in the sense that he hinders Wikipedia being what the project was intended to be.''

In his own words, T. Usher has expressed his view on Islam and its Prophet quite vividly.[]He’s expressed his view on the connection between medieval histories on Islam to actions in the world today and implied that changes to Wikipedia should be responsive to this reality, if not affect changes. [] []

I became aware of him through his edits on Islam related pages, firstly his changes to the WP:Islam project page. His edits to that page included ‘dos and don’ts’ instructions to the membership requesting that Muslims not address each other with “salaam”, that they not affix PBUH after the names of the prophets (Muslims seldom actually do this on Wikipedia, otherwise only on talk pages), and a reminder to Muslims that “Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for persuading other editors of the virtues of your way of life”.[][]

I, and others, have explained how these requests would offend any Muslim, also expressing my suspicion he was well aware of this. He dismissed repeated responses and engaged in edit wars to keep his additions regardless. Indeed, he had later expressed his view that the very show of reverence of Muhammad with “PBUH” was an act of support for alleged atrocities committed ‘upon the Jews’. ]  Additionally he has repeatedly deleted content from the WP:Islam talk page, claiming it amounted to "spam".

He has engaged in various actions that are difficult to interpret as being in ‘good faith’: 


 * This includes:

 
 * Impersonating a Muslim (or a “wikijihadist” as ‘the target’ put it) and baiting a seemingly unwilling individual, clearly critical of Islam, to be involved in the Muslim Guild.
 * Calling attention to the Muslim Guild on the ANI entry for the “Conservative Notice Board” which had already been removed from Wikipedia namespace:


 * Harassment of users:


 * Zora over her communications with Muslims:


 * Harassing Muslim user for expressing his faith on his user page (I suggest you view refuting opinions from other editors on Timothy’s actions in the thread):


 * Attacking a Muslim RfA applicant on grounds that he is a member of the Muslim Guild:
 * Observation by user:aminz suggesting Usher ‘cleverly’ manipulated opinion:
 * Full text of RfA, Timothy’s loaded questions appear at the end:


 * Attacking Netscott for agreeing with me:


 * Attacks/Harassment of User:Zereshk :


 * Attack on user:BhaiSaab for supporting a point of mine:


 * Attacks on myself:
 * Characterizing my actions towards bringing broarder involvement on Islamic articles as “spam solicitation of religiously motivated meatpuppetry”:
 * Drawing attention to my ‘record’ where irrelevant and unwarranted:
 * Not offensive, but annoying:


 * Defense of FairNBalanced’s display of highly offensive images:
 * "We're at war" justification of his defense of User:FairNBalanced:

I am not the only editor to have criticized his admitted opinions and his editing methods reflecting his views:  

Usher’s edit history: Quran: | 06:45, 31 May 2006

Additional edits reflecting his expressed views (where reading more of a thread provides better context than a diff, I've included the link to the thread section):


 * Support for category "People Killed by order of Muhammad", which has since failed (notice, his is one of only two "strong keeps):


 * Distinguishes between “Muslims and Academics”:


 * On article Musaylimah, so called midieval 'false prophet', Timothy edits to give the appearance that Muhammad similarly (ie falsely) ‘claimed’ to be a prophet:”:


 * Blanking of cited or otherwise undisputed material:


 * Attack on WP:Islam:


 * Uncited POV edits:


 * "We can’t say “prophet” Muhammad:

Talk:Muhammad No time is a bad time to call Allah "moon god":


 * Otherwise cited edits reflecting his single POV (These are violations of WP:NPOV on "undue weight" and "fair tone" grounds:

Criticism of Islam: Muhammad: Reverting Quran to include selectively mention verses readers may consider ‘violent’ (originally Pecher’s edits): 


 * Inflammatory or insensitive remarks on Muhammad, directed at Muslims: “by modern standards Muhammad would be considered a war criminal”:
 * "I'd have hung them all":


 * Entry to "Did you know" template "Did you know the booty captured by Muhammad...":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pecher/Archive_2#Islamism_article
 * Seeks Pecher's contribution to undo "Islamist-sympathizers'"work on "Islamism":

Pecher
''Pecher’s edits have been repeatedly found to mischaracterize texts he uses as sources. Given every single edit he has made on any topic related to Islam demonstrates the same objective and bias, I'll only post single instances of edits that show the selectivity in editing which WP:NPOV rejects. See Percher's edit history.''

Like Usher, he has been involved in the WP:Islam page, particularly The Muslim Guild, and has ‘encouraged’ Muslims to not participate in groups aimed at bringing more knowledge to the pool of editors on Islam-related topics. 

He also participated in the edit war over instruction on how members of Wikiproject Islam should behave. Recall I’ve explained these ‘rules’ were unfounded and offensive to Muslims. 

He often uses books rather than online sources, and often edits to include opinions disguised as fact (see WP:NPOV distinction between fact and opinion). The distinction has been pointed out to him,quite some time ago, by another user in the past.. Online sources are much easier to verify, compared to paper sources, and so many of his edits go unchallenged. Nonetheless, his edits have been responded to by challenges to his interpretation, his selective choice of evidence suggesting a darker account of events, and even allegations of deliberate misrepresentation of sources to imply a more damning account of events than the original author intended. 

Criticism from other editors, including challenges to his selective use of material and his interpretations: 101.5 User fed up with Pecher, suggests arbcom:, , On Banu Nadir: User notes conflict in information:

User approaching Tom Harrison on Pecher's POV bias:

Like Merzbow (my statements against him follow), Pecher employs the technique of excluding sources based on complaints on their reliability that are not rooted in written WP guidelines. .

WP:NPOV distinguishes between fact and opinion, and demands that opinions and facts that are disagreed on be attributed to their respective author. Unfortunately WP:NPOV does not outline penalties for violating NPOV through the mischaracterization of opinion as fact, or of debatable fact as uncontested fact. Pecher frequently ‘advises’ others on WP regulations and guidelines, so it cannot be said he violates WP:NPOV out of ignorance. WP:NPOV has subsections on its application, notably “fair tone” and “undue weight”. Going back through Pecher’s contributions to Islam and Islam-related articles, you can see an obvious and absolute disregard for undue weight. Like Timothy’s, the entirety of Pecher’s edit history shows this cherry-picking of the worst instances of Islamic history and misrepresentation of sources to push an harsh anti-Islamic POV.

Elaboration of one instance of bad-faith editing: This instance where I came in conflict with Pecher’s work, was in his edit to Dhimmi. I noted the section “Marriage”, which implied as a matter of fact by WP:NPOV, that Muslim marriages were comparable to slavery. Now this contradicts every Quranic verse and Hadith on the nature of marriage, which Muslims see as a partnership. I voiced this concern, and although the statement was sourced, I deleted it on the grounds that it violated WP:POV on the grounds that it gave undue weight to a view held by virtually 0% of the Muslim population. [] [] Certainly for a Muslim to see such a statement framed as fact on Wikipedia is offensive. I am not the first | to take note of the offensive message implied. The text from which he inserted this content acknowledges that the comparison of marriage to slavery made supposedly by Muhammad was not a suggestion that the two should be similar, but an expression of criticism and repulsion to what was the common treatment of wives at his time. His use of the comparison was for the purpose of encouraging Muslim men to treat their wives well. An intellectually honest editor would point to this context. Merzbow limited his compromise to including the name of the author of the book inline, without changing the implied message of the words. Aminz went further to put the entirety of the message in context, giving cited references and explanation to the relevant Hadith. [] Since then, Pecher has returned the offending paragraph to its original highly offensive form

 Pecher's edits reflecting his bias  ''His entire edit history demonstrates his single-objective POV. Please see:'' http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Pecher]

Inflammatory sarcastic remark on Muhammad:

Battle of Khaybar: ''This is the talk page discussion on Battle of Khaybar. Here Pecher tries to push the point that the military forces of Muhammad committed a massacre on the defeated Jewish side, despite several other editors using various sources to question the validity of that claim. It is questionable whether or not Pecher's own source stated what he claims it did'':
 * Better inflammatory than 'apologetic' (unsourced edit):

Banu Nadir (talk page thread) (turn to diffs?):

Muhammad: On WikiProject Judaism, User:TShilo12 questions the interpretation of Norman Stillman's book by Pecher on the Muhammad article: Dhimmi: Judith on impending edit war: Banu Qaynuna:

Marriage is slavery. []

Edit warring, ‘censorship’: 

  

Other users pointing to Pecher’s POV bias “Islam-bashing” and incivility:   http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pecher&diff=prev&oldid=60204406] 



Vandalism on Islam to make a WP:POINT 

Extraordinarily high expectation from less polemic 'reliable sources':

Content disputes with other editors: | 14:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)- 20:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Safiyya edit war:

Defense of “Jihad Watch” (anti-Islamic hate site) by deleting cited review of it from CAIR:

Edit warring on Dhimmi(complete edit history):

Inflammatory/insensitive commentary: Harassment over IbrahimFaisal’s userpage:

Incivility: 

Support for :Category:People Killed on order of Muhammad:

Deleting cited material that would have provided more NPOV:

Merzbow
My experience with this user is not quite extensive. I came to know of him through articles Dhimmi and Criticism of Islam. I don’t consider him to be an active POV-pusher as I do Pecher and Timothy Usher. I have had some considerable differences with several of his positions on his editing. I do find his editing to reflect a double-standard when it comes to the use of sources- sources that are perceived to be sympathetic in tone to Islam are excluded, those critical to Islam are protected. On his attacks against me, I’ll let the facts speak. Please read the ANI threads provided thoroughly. At worst they suggest a bias, possibly one that he isn’t conscious of. Let the facts speak:

Apparent momentary disregard for the WP:RS “guideline:

His justification is hardly cogent; Dhimmi listed 114 sources at the time (now 134).

Use of the WP: NPA warning template, and subsequent use of WP: vandalism template to affect a block:       

Aminz’s response on Merzbow’s talk page on the warning:  ANI entry I submitted:

Precedence for use of this tactic on User:Salman01:

Conversation on initiating an ArbComm case, recognition that Wikipedia community wouldn’t support a ban: 

Content dispute: Bat Ye’or: 

Wikilawyering: Mischaracterization of 'content dispute' as 'vandalism'.

In My Own Defense:
Firstly, on Hypnosadist taking offense...Consider his statements that I was responding to:

The logical conclusion you might derive about me, all this being said, is that in this conflict, I am merely the mirror image of those I’m in dispute against- a POV warrior arguing from the “Islamic” side. However if you note my contributions to articles like Hizb Ut-Tahrir, Shariah, Jihad and Islamism, you will find I don’t hold back in exposing criticisms of Islam, and particularly Islamism, where criticisms are lacking. [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] My tone regarding the Islamic topics could be seen as critical at times, at time sympathetic. I’ve always responded by editing to show what was lacking. In Hizb Ut-Tahrir, what was lacking was all the known evidence that showed their movement would bring about insulated Islamic states without regards for human rights in the modern sense. In Islamism, what was missing was evidence that the terminology has gained widespread usage, even amongst Muslims. In Dhimmi, Criticism of Islam, Banu Nadir, what’s missing is objectivity, respect for the subject matter, context, and neutrality. I do believe Wikipedia must reflect criticisms, but it must do so respecting due proportionality. Jimbo Wales understood this, as the sections on “fairness of tone” and “undue weight” in WP:NPOV show. Timothy User, Pecher and Merzbow have all worked to turn articles that should have been about history into articles that reflect nothing but the most offensive content their sources have to offer. This, I take strong exception to.

In response to this,I’ve filed 3 RFCs seeking unbiased and uninvested editors to get involved, I’ve gone to the IRC channels and asked for reviews of the articles. I’ve urged members of WP:Islam to contribute with their knowledge, and Timothy Usher accused me of ‘spamming’. I’ve been harsh in my responses to Merzbow, but I haven’t called him anything in the sense that would violate WP:NPA.Given his selectivity in deciding when a source is ‘reliable’ or not, and his habit of making judgments without giving corresponding sources from actual WP policy, I’d argue his actions are also questionable. Given that nobody stood up to apply NPOV on these articles, my general attitude of skepticism relative to Wikipedia is also reasonable. 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.

My point-by-point response to Merzbow’s list
''Many of the points Merzbow raised include violations I am actually guilty of, contributions that do not contain violations in any sense, and instances where (according to WP policy) I am actually correct relative to the person I am responding to. He has included exerpts from heated dialogues where my harsh comment was in response to another harsh comment, and though they suggest I can be rude at times, it is important to consider context.''

Wikipedia as battleground, conspiracy theories

Merzbow’s list contains facts, misunderstandings, and faulty allegations. I won’t argue that a proportion of his allegations are factual. This was drafted before his addition of the timestamp. Since the text is the same, I’m keeping this as is. To compare my response to his list, open two pages, one with his list prior to the addition of the timestamps, and this list. . [2] is true. [3] My attempt at bringing people with knowledge of Islam to articles where the Muslim perspective was absent. [4], [5] A heated criticism that doesn’t violate WP policy. [6],[7] heated but accurate observations on my part. [8] Addressed in my counter case against Usher, Pecher and Merzbow. Offensive statements against race, religion, and nationality [10] My edits were being deleted despite bringing a more NPOV and being thoroughly cited. [11] Not violation of WP policy. [12] Will explain elaborately following this. [13] Heated remark, not violation of WP policy. [14] The guy I’m responding to accused Muhammad of being a pedophile. I responded heatedly. Not violation of WP policy. [15] Part of my “Wikiharakiri”. Stupid remark I’m sure to pay for.

Acknowledges he knows why he gets blocked [18] Sad but true. [19] [20] Heated remark after being blocked for what I felt frivolous reasons. 20 explains 19.No contest.

[21] To be honest, I think it’s a bloody good point. I was blocked ‘indefinitely’ for using the word bigot, the same admin felt a 1 week block on FairNBalanced was too much although he posted terribly offensive images on his user page, then joined WikiProject:Islam to make his offensive gesture visible to the Muslim community here.

Personal attacks on admin Celestianpower [22]-[[26] Celestianpower blocked me for 3RR, although I had made the 4th edit after the 24th hour. Effectively, he blocked me although WP policy didn’t recognize his reason for applying the block. I disagreed with the POV accusation as well, which you can consider. His block was overturned by another admin when I visited the IRC chatroom and asked for it to be reviewed. Admittedly not an excuse for making personal attacks.

Miscellaneous incivility and attacks as Amibidhrohi

[27] What ever happened to having a sense of humor? Does not violate WP policy. [28] I provided 7 sources where people who reviewed Ann Coulter’s work used the word ‘racist’ to describe her. Even then, I couldn’t use the sub-heading “allegations of racism”. Heated discussion. [29],[30] [31] No contest. Shouldn’t have said that. Didn’t read WP:NPA. Of course, I was attacking a group, so it’s not exactly personal.[32], [33],[34], [35]Hamas is hopelessly biased. Very pro-western perspective. Repeated deletions of all sourced-but-not-Western views.

Miscellaneous incivility and attacks as His excellency [36] Mean but true. No contest. [37] Timothy Usher, nuff said. [38] Relative to Timothy Usher’s changes to WP:Islam. Sharing what I knew about his sour opinion of Muhammad, and what that suggested of his objectives in WP:Islam. [39] Save the ‘butt buddy’ phrase, rest seems pretty reasonable to me. [40] Comment with someone I have a common understanding with, doesn’t violate WP policy. [41] I was blocked indefinitely for calling Timothy Usher a bigot, and told I would only be unblocked if I promised Tom Harrison I would be good. I found this humiliating, and preferred rather to prove Timothy Usher’s own words suggest the term ‘bigot’ is an appropriate English word describing what he in fact is. [42],[43] Wise words if I do say so myself. Responses to comments made to me, none violate WP policy. [44] harsh but not unfounded commentary. [45] On Talk:Dhimmi, under mentioned heading, Merzbow decides to comment on my meager contribution to the article. I pointed out that he leaves my contributions that could be considered positive, out. Valid pbservation. [46] reasonable response. I was blocked for filing an AFD after it became clear to me that the article was hopelessly single-POV.

[47] In response to my finding the “Muslim marriage is slavery” paragraph, which Merzbow would later protect even though I mention it violates the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV.

[48] Not meant to be as offensive as it seems. Read the comment I’m responding to: I’m being told that Wikipedia is pro-West biased because it was invented in the West by a man named Jimbo Wales. As an invention from the West, it’s apparently a gift for myself and ‘my children’ to learn from. I merely gave a proportional response, suggesting I’m not the one who needs learning. Note: Much of the comments were made in frustration, I deleted them myself:

Actions after ArbComm case filed [49] – [52] There’s only so much a man can take. Even I’m surprised I didn’t get a perma-block. [53] You wouldn’t notice it in text, but I was really putting the emphasis on “not that I’d punch him in the face”.

Drives good editors from Wikipedia [54]-[56] I regret the comment. After all I’ve done pointing out the biases that existed in so many articles against Islam, Aminz posted this: User_talk:Merzbow&diff=prev&oldid=62696024 Of course, biting his head off was wrong.

Evidence he is aware of the rules [57] Yes, I’m aware of the rules.

Evidence he is contemptuous of WP:V, WP:RS [58] Friendly discussion that this focus on events centuries ago isn’t necessarily productive. Commentary on whether or not time spent working on these articles is indeed worthwhile. Not a commentary on how articles should be produced.

Professor Friedmann edit war [59]-[62] ], [64] My action was actually correct according to WP:NPOV :’’’ “If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.” ‘’’ [65] Merzbow misread/Misrepresented my statement. I didn’t say I edited anything, I checked the edit history and found Pecher introduced the paragraph. The paragraph frames ‘Muslim marriage is slavery’ in a tone that suggests this is accepted fact. It clearly isn’t. Merzbow does improve this to a very small degree, as it still suggests the same message. Aminz improves the paragraph to provide context of Friedmann’s source, mentioned in his own book. Pecher has since reverted it to his previous “matter of fact” form which violates NPOV, as well as misrepresents the content.

Disruption via bogus AfD to prove a point [66],[67] Posted AFD in good faith. I knew little of AFDs, but from previous ones I’ve read, I know people have commented and suggested ‘rewrites’. The article remained as is, with a little banner on top- no real disruption at all to the article and work on it. I was blocked for filing this AFD. My ‘ulterior motive’ was that the AFD would draw attention to the quality of the article. I wasn’t ‘proving a point’, as Merzbow alleges. Considering the degree to which Dhimmi violated WP:NPOV, I had hoped this option would be the one taken.

Proxy personal attacks on (non-Wikipedia) opponents via unreliable sources [69]-[71] Content dispute. Editors are very protective of the right to portray Muhammad as a murderer, but are defensive when it comes to mentioning sourced criticisms against “critics of Islam”. The article in which this discussion is happening is “Criticism of Islam”. I believe still that the theme can, and in the name of POV should, include third party verifiable comments and criticisms voiced regarding those critics on whose works the article is mostly based. I felt (and still feel) the attitude that criticism of Muhammad should be presented and expanded to expose every faced of alleged weaknesses in his character should be held as admirable, while criticisms of vocal critics should be censored. Call me crazy.

Inaccurate opinion sourced as fact

[72], [73] I cited what I thought was a fairly well written editorial piece from a well-known source. Merzbow alleges beliefnet.com is not a credible source. Being as we’re the only two to comment on the source, there’s no consensus on the reliability. Beliefnet.com claims it has received positive reviews from the Washington Times, and Chicago Tribune and BusinessWeek.com. 

[75] Merzbow alleges Opendemocracy.net is not a usable source, but provides no WP policy that would justify its exclusion. The author of the article is educated in the field, more so than Bat Ye’or whose work makes a up for a huge percentage of the article content. Merzbow removed content wrongly.

Quote-dumping and lack of sourcing

[77]-[79] These quotes are discussed at length on the talk page, and were suggested by Aminz. Nobody took exception to them, and so I introduced them into the articles. A good faith edit which Merzbow labels as ‘quote dumping’.