User talk:Timothy Usher/Archive 6

Mosque

The section was not changed because it was "controversial", but because it was too large. If you read talk, gren makes some good arguments. BhaiSaab ^talk 06:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course I read talk, but "...controversial part moved to daughter article"[1].Timothy Usher 06:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right. On the debate goes...I would like to see your input on talk if you have the time. BhaiSaab ^talk 07:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I responded to this statement on the Mosque talk page essentially saying that you were not correct. As the link shows, I was just removing the {{pov-section}} template because the controversial part had been moved to the daughter article. Its controversial nature was not the reason it was moved; that was just a side effect of moving the extensive negative material out of the article and cutting down the section that appeared on Mosque. Regardless you should have at least contributed to the discussion prior to reverting all of the changes made to the section. joturner 10:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An Apology Just in Case

I was thinking of archiving my talk page soon (since I always do it sometime after reaching fifty posts) when I noticed a comment I made about a month ago. It had been sitting at the top of my page for a few weeks but I completely forgot about it. Although it has been a month to the day since the comment, I don't want it to end the wrong way when it gets filed in my archives. I intended to make a request - albeit a rather direct request - to assume good faith. When I wrote that comment, I thought I had conveyed the intended message of you have a history of assuming bad faith and so I'm not going to address this assumption of bad faith. But now after giving it a second look, and giving your response a second look, I'm afraid you may have perceived it as a biting indictment of your opinions and a slap in the face along the lines of because of your comments on my RfA, I never want to talk to you again. I understand that you may even consider my intended message a bit harsh, but I felt it needed to be said for the advancement of positive, cooperative relations within the Wikipedia community (not to sound grandiose). I hope you have at least to some degree taken my advice and taken extra care to assume good faith. If I misled you to my intentions the first time I posted the comment or if, even now after this explanation, this comment still comes off a bit harsh, I extend my sincerest apologies. I look forward to seeing great and calculated contributions from you in the future. joturner 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Medcab

A case in which you are a party (Banu Nadir) has been submitted to mediation by the Mediation Cabal. Please review the proposed solution in this case.Geo. 19:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

His excellency

It's ok. I didn't base the block on any of your posts anyway. Didn't need to. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

From Woohookitty's talk page

Tom harrison indefinitely blocked His excellency at 18:09 18 June. Five of eight (= "most") diffs referenced on PAIN came after that block. Bishonen's block, as shown in the log, was intended to un-indef-block him, and hardly counts as a "new" block. I suppose if one takes this block reduction to technically be his "last block", then none came after it. In other words, Bishonen shortened his indefinite block in full knowledge of what he'd posted since then.Timothy Usher 05:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have avoided responding to your anti-Bishonen campaign so far, Timothy Usher, but I have to ask: why don't you stop boring people about the abusive Bishonen in unexpected contexts (I'm on WP:PAIN now...?) and focus your meagre material in an RfC? Note that in an RfC you'd be expected to supply evidence of charges made, which makes it more interesting. It wouldn't be acceptable to make up random accusations like — here's one from Geogre's page — "It would seem that FNB has been driven from Wikipedia from the two-minute hate on ANI, while the abusive user Bishonen defends insists upon maintaining an attack section on his user talk page."[2] Come to think of it, it's not really acceptable on the rest of the site either either. Could you please either supply evidence for that noisome accusation about my insistence on an attack section, or withdraw it? I don't ask you to withdraw the name-calling, because I don't care. It reflects badly on you, not me. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

This comment is not only abusive ("your anti-Bishonen campaign", "stop boring people", "your meagre material"), but also is not a response to Timothy's comment copied above. Pecher ^Talk 18:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please parse again: "the abusive user Bishonen defends insists", does not mean the same thing as, "the abusive user Bishonen insists". Now you've gotten him out of his second indef block[3] (after suggesting on PAIN that you wouldn't be involved[4]), thus ensuring the resumption of his trolling and personal attacks.Timothy Usher 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Parse? It doesn't parse. It's a mix of two versions. Let me just get this clear: you decline to withdraw your lie on Geogre's page, and also decline to offer any evidence for it? And are not ashamed? Bishonen | talk 21:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Point being, I didn't call you an abusive user, or any name despite accusations of "name calling" - unless you have evidence in this regard? As Pecher notes above, your comments are hardly measured, and do not respond to what is posted, but change the subject.

Return to the beginning of this thread: I'd observed that your claim that His excellency's latest racial and sectarian attacks were not made after his "last block" (now second-to-last) was only trivially true, and plainly deceptive. As you've no reply to this, I address your new subject: I stand by my comments on Geogre's talk page, and those on Woohookitty's talk page, and those on PAIN, and those here. For what is it that you'd like me to provide evidence?Timothy Usher 22:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence that I either defended, or insisted on maintaining, or however else you would like to parse the sentence I quoted above, an attack section on FNB's page. Or on His Excellency's page (because it did strike me you were perhaps thinking of that rather than FNB's), or on any page. You seem reluctant to understand me, but I suppose your sentence meant something? Referred to an action of mine that you considered abusive? Please interpret or translate it yourself, and post evidence for it. I'd like to see that, but if you continue to dance around my meaning, I have done. It's sort of what I expect, after I quoted as well as linked you to your phrase "the abusive user Bishonen defends... etc" in Geogre's archive, and you come back with "Point being, I didn't call you an abusive user". That's quite remarkable. Bishonen | talk 23:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I think we might be running into a linguisitic barrier here. "The abusive user Bishonen defends" referred to His excellency, a relentlessly abusive user who you've twice saved from indef block. Do you deny that?Timothy Usher 00:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's rephrase it as "the abusive user whom Bishonen defends". "Whom", just like "that", can be omitted in the English language when it introduces a subordinate clause. Pecher ^Talk 08:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible H.E. ArbComm case?

What do you think? It appears there is not yet enough consensus on AN/I for an indef community ban. Personally I think once he returns he'll act up again quickly and solidify support for such, but in the meantime do you think it makes sense to proceed with an ArbComm case against him? It's painful to think of how many hours we're going to waste working on that case when we could be editing productively, but given how many hours we already spend dealing with H.E.'s disruption we'll most likely come out ahead in the end. - Merzbow 23:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

As a practical matter, it will just get him unblocked to respond to the ArbComm case.Timothy Usher 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I think his block was reduced to a week again by WHKitty (although for some reason the block log is refusing to show information about his username so I can't be sure). If he gains himself another indef after that and is unblocked to respond to ArbComm, he'll only be allowed to post on ArbComm and not elsewhere, I believe. - Merzbow

Woohookitty reduced his block according to the discussion on ANI, wherein Bishonen argued for the reduction[5] despite her earlier statement on PAIN recognizing that she shouldn't be involved[6]. Bishonen is the same administrator who reduced his last indef block, and declined to counsel him against personal attacks. You can say he'll only be allowed to post on ArbCom, but having seen instances where this was not enforced, I wouldn't count on it. So, don't move forward with any such case until his current blocks expire, or are reduced once more by his sympathizer(s).Timothy Usher 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. We'll see what happens. - Merzbow

Jesus and the Christianity template

Please take a look at Talk:Jesus#Resolving_the_Christianity_template_dispute if you have the time. —Aiden 23:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look, but it won't be right away. Thanks for the heads up.Timothy Usher 00:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Giovanni33

I wouldn't bother defending your actions to him. He's shown an unwillingness to listen, as far as I'm concerned. I've given up trying to justify other people's actions to him. He's just waiting for someone to make a mistake so he can catch them out and call for an unblock, I think. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS} 07:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Giovanni33 has informally desired to mediate a dispute with you, but due to being blocked, s/he cannot edit anywhere. If you'd like to take part in this dispute resolution, then please join the IRC channel #wikipedia-medcab whenever you can so that we may discuss these issues. Thanks. --The prophet wizard of the crayon cake 08:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to bother, but can you link me to, or specifically point out, some evidence of sockpuppetry? --The prophet wizard of the crayon cake 08:36, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on WP:AN#Sockpuppet block of User:Professor33. Over and out for now.Timothy Usher 08:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Linguistic evidence and IP evidence can't be made public. Giovanni was found by a usercheck to be editing from the same IP as User:BelindaGong, who was aggressively reverting to his version, and violating 3RR. They had pretended not to know each other. He then said she was his wife, but the WP:SOCK policy is clear that having family members and friends join to help you out with extra reverts and votes is a violation, and he knew that at the time, as he was referred to that policy several times. Then, while Giovanni was blocked for puppetry, User:Freethinker99 and started reverting to Giovanni's version, saying he was new, but had read the talk page and agreed with Giovanni. When people on the talk page suggested that this might be a further violation of WP:SOCK, Freethinker replied with something like "Geez, thanks. Makes me feel really welcome as a new user." Then, Giovanni was asked if he had any connection to any of the new users, and he denied it, forgetting that he was logged on as Freethinker. (Check Freethinker99's contributions.) He tried to get rid of the evidence by changing the signature, but we had already seen it. He tried to explain it away by saying that he hadn't seen Freethinker's name, as it was added to the question later, but it had been there for 50 minutes when he was typing his denial, and would have been in the edit box immediately above the first words that he was typing. Additionally, the contributions of Kecik and MikaM show that those accounts exist for the purpose of supporting Giovanni. Kecik has 40 reverts to his version out of a total of 45 article edits. Other new users appear suddenly, and revert to his version. Giovanni has openly acknowledged his IP, and sometimes one of the suspected (or proven) puppets makes an edit from an IP and later acknowledges it. They are all geographically close. The timing of Professor33's edits suggested that he could have been editing around the time that Giovanni would be at work according to his time zone. These new users show familiarity with Wikipedia, and revert with confidence. In some cases (e.g. HK30) some of the evidence is in edits which have been deleted, as he was posting a link to a website that stalked Wikipedians, giving their real names, photos, etc. (Incidentally, Giovanni33 defended HK30's behaviour.) Professor33 jumped straight into a dispute between Giovanni and Str1977 on Str's talk page within hours of registering — something a genuine newbie with no connection to Giovanni would be most unlikely to do. However, as I said, linguistic and IP evidence is not given out on demand. We don't want to teach people how to be better at puppetry. AnnH ♫ 08:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just don't believe you. Evidence that's not provided is not evidence, it's the empty promise of evidence. People lie, which is why evidence trumpts testimony. Your testimony is unconvincing. Al 14:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, most of what Ann has said is easily verifiable by you. Additionally, I have seen the linguistic evidence, some of which was immediately evident to me without Ann's help. Please join the thread on AN if you'd like to continue the discussion.Timothy Usher 17:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that's great... but I still have no evidence. -- The prophet wizard of the crayon cake 00:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please join the thread on AN where this is discussed. Thanks.Timothy Usher 01:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comment

Regarding your comment at User_talk:Alienus. Please note that this user has called me in the course of the last few days "a cultist" and "a cult member" using it in the worst pejorative manner. That is a personal attack, as described in policy. I would agree that he managed to provoke me to the point I reacted by citing his block history in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule, and I have learned my lesson not to give-in to provocation again. As for his accusations of edit warring, note that this user has accused me of other things as well, simply because I got involved on a series of articles about Ayn Rand in response to a request placed at WP:NPOV talk page, and challenged what I considered some very obvious violations of NPOV. His response to my last interaction, with an edit summary of "buzz off" [7], summarizes that kind of abuse I have been withstanding. I have now decided to stop editing these articles, as I have better things to do than feed whatever is that generates that kind of vitriolic comments. The community should not allow that kind of toxicity to prevail. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

You'd have to make it a bit clearer what dispute you think we're having. As far as I can see, there's nothing that wouldn't be very well resolved by each of us leaving the other alone, both directly (=not seeking contact) and indirectly (=not going out of our way to refer to them). I already abide by this, and would be extremely happy to undertake to continue it. We've probably never edited any of the same articles, so what's the need for interaction? There, dispute resolved, as far as I'm concerned. Bishonen | talk 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Bishonen, I think it pretty clear that it stems from the FNB debate on ANI, prior to which I can't recall seeing your username. Subsequent to this, you took it upon yourself to conspicuously aid a user whose main reason for being here appears to be to attack me and a number of others, across Wikipedia, and cited the FNB debate as a justification for this user's actions. In doing so, you've knowingly and wilfully subjected me and others to a great deal of ongoing distress. If and when you cease doing so, there is no more dispute. Without asking you to accept my characterization of events (to which you've not spoken), are you willing to cease aiding this user?Timothy Usher 02:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm sorry you don't like my suggestion, because it really appeals to me; I like to save time and stress by walking away from petty acrimony. I'm still not clear what "it"—the dispute—is, that stems from the FNB thread on ANI—it seems to be all on your side. I will not fence with you to try to learn what your mystery phrase "aiding this user" means; I already asked what the dispute is about, and I dislike being kept bootlessly inquiring. But I will take the time to show as clearly as I can how the events you refer to look to me. I hope that'll be helpful, because it's all I've got. If you want more, then perhaps input from the community in an RfC, or seeking arbitration of my misdeeds, can give you the sense of closure you apparently need. Those are steps in dispute resolution too.

This is my view of what you refer to as "aiding this user".I reviewed Tom Harrison's indefinite block against HE, a user I'd never come across or heard of before, that was posted on ANI, and then I shortened the block from indefinite to three days. I posted a full explanation of my action on ANI, which involved discussing HE's demeanor in conflict with several other users I'd never heard of before, including yourself, Netscott, and Tom Harrison. I suggested any other admin was welcome to change my block in turn, but nobody did offer to change it. This is a highly appropriate use of ANI: it's exactly to make such actions as mine possible that blocks are posted for review.

When a second block against HE was posted by WooHookitty, and extended to indefinite by Jeffrey Gustafson, I again reviewed, and posted my opinion that the extension of the block to indefinite was excessive in view of the evidence cited. I didn't offer to shorten it myself, as I had already done that once for that particular user. If nobody else out of 900 admins would unblock/shorten, I would rather have let the block stand. But WooHooKitty herself reinstated her week block.

You've attacked my actions in both these cases on ANI, and here and there on the site, IMO in an intemperate manner, ascribing malice and structuring a number of accusations on what Netscott calls the "false analogy" principle. You execrated my carefully neutral reference to you as "the presumed victim" of His Excellency's personal attack, apparently reading the phrase as the "pretend victim" or the "not-really-a-victim" (as if foreclosing the issue by calling you "the victim" would have been the neutral way of putting it?). You've built on such arguments a case that I was motivated by wanting to enable personal attacks, in the hope that they will continue; a freewheeling analysis that's offensive to me. To claim to be in a stranger's head at all, let alone to find only ordure in there, is intrusive, it's overly intimate, it's disrepectful. That's why the WP:NPA policy emphasizes "comment on the content, not on the contributor".

I don't indeed endorse your characterization of what I have done (or am doing?), not any of it, and no, I will not cease reviewing blocks. Next time a block posted on ANI, involving any user, including His Excellency, rings a warning bell with me, I will review it if I have time, and take action if I find reason to. Again, this is what posting blocks for review on ANI is for. Taking on responsibilities of this type was one of the things I accepted when I accepted adminship. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC).

Welcome back

Hi Timothy; good to see you back on board. It seems that you and Scott have developed a somewhat intractably antagonistic relationship; I note his constant references back to the Fairnbalanced thing, but I also note your "best defence is a good offence" responses to some of his recent posts involving third parties (eg. me). I appreciate your concern, but I'm not sure your methods are necessarily the best way to engage Scott constructively. (Forgive me if this sounds patronising; it's not intended to be. I'd like to hope that we can all work cooperatively together, given our common interests — call me a starry-eyed optimist.) Anyway, thanks for your comments, but I'm happy just letting Scott's more egregious excesses go unremarked. — JEREMY 07:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea how to engage him constructively. Believe me, I've tried. It's come to seem as if the reason he's here is to drive other users away.Timothy Usher 08:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Article has already been reverted

The Occidental page has already been reverted, so there was no need. Additionally, an anonymous user made 3 reverts as well, adding biased information to the page. You should read the talk section of the article before making 3RR accusations. There is a valid reason for removing the "information"

Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#People_killed_by_order_of_Muhammad

Bravo on your comments in this (in my humble opinion) totally wrongheaded and outrageous vote for deletion. I wish more users would bring your brand of common sense to the discussion. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 00:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not this time

H.E.'s edits have become much better, in comparison I mean. He wasn't that guilty this time. Merzbow "did" made a mistake in giving him harsh warnings and worstened the situation. --Aminz 08:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism to Giovanni 33's user pages - warning 1

Thank you for experimenting with the page Giovanni 33's user pages on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Steve-o 11:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Giovanni 33's user pages" - Well, at least we can agree on the obvious, that all these userpages belong to Giovanni33.Timothy Usher 08:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Asma bint Marwan

Could you please watch out for the Asma bint Marwan article? BhaiSaab is still insisting on removing some essential information from the article, in order to prove a WP:Point about my editing in another article. -- Karl Meier 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

His excellency (talk · contribs) ArbComm case filed.

You have been nominated as an involved user.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#His_excellency_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29. - Merzbow 00:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the case is going to officially open. It's up to you if you want to post a statement or not. - Merzbow 21:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism

Stop vandalising my user page! Kecik 07:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Giovanni.Timothy Usher 08:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Timothy, I've noticed the tagging and untagging of user pages of Giovanni's puppets. One of them, Deuteronomy2000, created the account specially to make a 3RR report of FeloniousMonk. As the account was created specially for that purpose, it seemed to be on the same level as an anonymous letter. It was also nearly twelve hours old. I deleted it. Giovanni, rather foolishly (since he's being watched at the moment), reverted me, saying that it seemed valid. It seems significant that FeloniousMonk had blocked him shortly before that, and that I was the one who had rejected the report. (I've never edited with FeloniousMonk, and a brief look at that dispute suggested that I might be on the other side.) Anyway, I looked at it in detail, and the fourth revert was not a revert. However, FeloniousMonk thought that Giovanni, with his history of puppetry, had created the account for that purpose, and said so. Others agreed that it was possible, though his next block was not for puppetry. Then you tagged the account. Then Giovanni, when unblocked, started to edit war at the user pages.

I do not personally think that Deuteronomy2000 is Giovanni. Giovanni is more likely to create an account so that he can get three extra reverts saying that Hitler received the sacraments devoutly, or that Christianity is a self-professed monotheistic religion centered on stories, or whatever. It's logical to assume that if he had wanted to hide his identity, while taking revenge on FeloniousMonk, he would have reverted me as Deuteronomy2000, not as Giovanni. So while of course the BelindaGong account should be tagged, I'd like you to leave the Deuteronomy one alone. I have made the same request of Str1977. Of course, neither Giovanni nor Deuteronomy has any right to be frightfully indignant. Deuteronomy is obviously a puppet, so can't bristle with indignation at being called one; and Giovanni is a proven puppeteer, so equally shouldn't bristle with indignation when obvious behaviour leads to obvious conclusions. Cheers, AnnH ♫ 23:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That Giovanni is connected to this account is just common sense; see contributions, username. At best, it's someone else he put up to creating an account and posting the report - one he was looking out for, and had enough personal stake in to revert.Timothy Usher 00:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the above, please note that you violated 3RR in this edit war with Giovanni. And no, removing a 'suspected sockpuppet tag' is not (as you suggested in your edit summaries) 'vandalism', so there is no 3RR exemption for reverting such. Please don't do this. If someone is a suspected sockpuppet request a check-user or get comments from others rather than revert warring. --CBD 14:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not violate 3RR.Timothy Usher 18:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I saw that post from CBD, I looked at the history of the pages. There was no 3RR violation, except from Giovanni. Giovanni33 has violated WP:SOCK in the past. This has been confirmed by checkuser in one case, and by carelessly posting a denial that he had any connection to any of the new users who were supporting him, while forgetting that he was logged on as one of them! The checkuser policy says Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser. I've hardly ever come across more obvious ones. That said, I would still request, Timothy, that you leave the Deuteronomy account alone. That account could have been created by the editor whose edits FeloniousMonk had reverted. Or it could have been someone with a grudge against FeloniousMonk. But when we have such strong evidence with Kecik and the others, it weakens it if you add a case where the evidence is not strong. AnnH ♫ 19:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

You inserted the same material to the page four times in under 24 hours. That's a 3RR violation... and a fairly straightforward one at that. I assure you that there is no proviso in the policy that 'you may ignore 3RR if the user you are edit warring with has been in trouble in the past'. --CBD 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Inserting the same material four times? Unless the first insertion is of something that was there previously and had been removed by another editor, that will be one edit and three reverts. And of course, Timothy doesn't have the right to ignore 3RR on the grounds that the other user has been in trouble. The point is: he didn't ignore it. AnnH ♫ 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, two admins with Checkuser status have verified that Deuteronomy2000 is not Giovanni33. Not just that it's not his IP, but that it's a different user altogether. So, while I've no doubt that he controls or controlled the Kecik, MikaM, NPOV77 etc. accounts, I'd urge you even more strongly to stay away from Deuteronomy. Thanks. AnnH ♫ 07:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins and others here

There are some sick and nasty people here and that is for sure. Please know that you're not alone. And please don't let her get away with it. she is always trying to pull some phony stunt like this. Bring her (or him) to dispute resolution. It's the right thing to do. Old friend 06:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A Question

I read your comments on Tony Sidaway's page. Assuming its true, why haven't you changed your ID as soon as you found yourself involved in controversial topics? You could've ask the admins to change your account ID easily enough. Though we have our differences, I don't feel you should be personally affected. In the arbritration, I'll refer to you as T Usher or simply "Usher" in general content if that helps any, although where diffs are concerned I can't do much. His Excellency... 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I’d come to believe that personal attacks were strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. I hadn't considered that this kind of thing might be allowed to continue.

Unless I'm forgetting something, I've not been involved in any of the articles or talk pages in question since the your first indef on the 18th of June.

Between us - not to be brusque, but practical - there’s nothing more to arbitrate. ArbCom will either prevent you from making further personal attacks or they will not. If they don’t, I’m out of here, and if they do, it seems probable that you are. For the foreseeable future, I am, with very few exceptions (such as this response), self-banning myself from any space in which you appear.

I do recall agreeing with some things you’d said, and I also recall times here and there at which you were civil - for example, your message above. Perhaps at some indeterminate time in future we can return to discussing and debating content in a lawful manner. But for now, I'm prepared to cede any article or talk space to you.

I appreciate your offer. Of course, you’re expected to provide diffs for what you choose to discuss, but there's no reason to attack me any further - I'm not the one who brought this case, I've posted no evidence against you, and I'd like to honor my brief statement at ArbCom. I’d just like to avoid interacting with you, and if you'll allow me to do that, that'd be great.

Thank you for your friendly post.Timothy Usher 08:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please write something in your own defense

Timothy, you shouldn't let it go as it is. I can only make comment on the discussions I was involved in+ some general comments. --Aminz 22:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

I partially reverted your change here, because frankly it does not make sense. The US has signed it; they cannot sign it again, hence they cannot make their signature conditional upon anything -- they've already done it.

Although they are popularly presented as having "withdrawn" their signature, that's not entirely accurate. In legal terms (statements to the press are not legally effective), what they did was they sent a letter to the Secretary-General stating "the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty. Accordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000." That has been popularly presented in the media as a "withdrawal" of signature, however whether that counts as a withdrawal (a word they didn't use), or what it even means for a state to "withdraw" a signature (or whether that is even possible) is a very murky legal issue.

But, in any case, the signature is irrelevant (and that is part of why its murky -- legally signature means very little, so very rarely does anyone try to "withdraw" it...) What counts is ratification (or accession) not signature. And in the case of the US, the real political issue is this -- will the US choose to put up roadblocks to the court's work, or will it cooperate albeit from without? Ratification by the US is very unlikely anytime soon -- no one is seriously hoping on it. The real issue, as I said, is how the US deals with the court from without... --SJK 11:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Timothy,

Thank you so much for not forgetting me! --Aminz 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your help requested in a debate

I got three guys who hang together accusing an article I created of being original research and demanding that it be deleted. So far, no disinterested people have stopped in other than someone who deleted the prod tag. Since you are open-minded, as likely to agree with me as disagree with me, and well established on policy, your help would be greatly appreciated.

Talk:Hermeticism and other thought systems, there is a RfC and another section that lists things that are being accused of being OR.

Thanks in advance, KV(Talk) 12:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment

Timothy, I didn't understand that my comment was not civil. Moreover, I thought I was writing in your support. I am all ear if you would like to discuss it. --Aminz 09:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I misunderstood it maybe because it came immediately after my comment which provided some details. --Aminz 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Suspected and confirmed

Hi, Timothy. Confirmed puppets have their own separate category, as you'll see from the {{sockpuppeteer}} tag on this page. Cheers. AnnH ♫ 11:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Acknowledgement

Joturner, I must acknowledge that your refusal to contribute to the gratuitous prosecutorial atmosphere against an editor you've very substantially disagreed with in the past speaks well, in my eyes, of your character, morally, academically and WP-wise.

And allow me also to congratulate you upon what would seem to be (?) your admission to Stanford. Perhaps I'll run into you one of these days.Timothy Usher 09:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledgement. Regarding Stanford, I'm going into my senior year in high school; the universities I mentioned on my user page are my top choices, the ones I would like to attend. I still am in the process of applying to them. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Timothy.--Aminz 08:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you tolerant?

Timothy, I feel you are very tolerant towards me. Man, please criticize me. I feel bad when I see your silence. Do you remember any time that I was disagreeing with you but didn't express it? I don't remember! --Aminz 08:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, would you please have a look at this [8]. I am not sure if that article is neutral or not though. --Aminz 01:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

Tim, do you have any feedback on my work here [9] ? Thanks --Aminz 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

but actually it has nothing to do with that project :) . We are working on how articles on Islam should be written. I just had to put it somewhere (and the most obvious place to put it was WikiProject of Islam which I am aware of). Striver now put it on a separate page: [10]. --Aminz 22:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This all looks great to me. Your distinctions regarding IslamOnline are particularly valuable and instructive. Sorry I don't have any criticisms...Timothy Usher 22:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting me Tim. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Expected respect for scholars like Bernard Lewis,William Muir , Carl Ernst,D A Spellberg,William Montgomery Watt,John Esposito.

Timothy, There are some editors here [11] who don't have the expected respected for these scholars. Would you please make a comment there. Thanks --Aminz 22:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Aminz, I'm afraid if I make a comment there, I'll likely face further slander by H.E. At least for now, new attacks are confined to the ArbCom pages. However, I agree with Tariq. Although books by these scholars aare of course worthy sources, they don't have to follow NPOV; they are free to refer to anyone however they like. As they have to refer to someone again and again, stylistic variation is likely a motive. But that's just my opinion, motivated, no doubt by...well, you know.Timothy Usher 22:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, Yup. The motive is probably the stylistic variation, but then so can be the case with wikipeida. The point is that they don't have any taboo of using the word "Prophet". And if editors would like to make the analogy of “Jesus Christ”, they need to provide references at which the renowned academic scholars state "Jesus Christ" or "Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ". It is not up to their personal opinions. "PROPHET: a person who speaks by or as if by divine inspiration" according to a source." I thought you support the standards of the western scholarship. --Aminz 05:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Although books by these scholars aare of course worthy sources, they don't have to follow NPOV" Are you suggesting that all these scholars are writing POV when they write "Prophet Muhammad" ??? --Aminz 06:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I just meant they aren't subject to such scrutiny. Overall, they're subject to much more scrutiny, but not this one.Timothy Usher 06:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you need to prove it for example through citing references at which they state "Jesus Christ"? You haven't provided any "falsification test" for your theory yet. --Aminz 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Jesus Christ is more POV than is the prophet, since, as you point out, the latter might be viewed as merely a job description. However, I'm skeptical that this is the real reason for this debate. Is tmy skepticism unwarranted?Timothy Usher 07:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Timothy, the other side has provided/claimed that 1. Pope refered to Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" or (prophet Muhammad). 2. The American Heritage Dictionary (Dell ed. 2001) who defines Prophet in a way that distinguishes between true prophet and false prophets. 3. We have provided/claimed that 7 "famous" scholars are not hesitant to call Muhammad by the epithet "prophet". 4. We have added that Encyclopedia Britanica ("The ethical teachings of Islam are rooted in the Qur'an, but the model of perfect ethical character, which is called Muhammadan character by Muslims, has always been that of the Prophet."[12]) and "websters-online-dictionary" & Jewish Encyclopedia (e.g. "The prophet himself perceived, especially after the death of his protector Abu Talib and of his (Mohammed's) wife Khadijah, that his native city was not the proper place in which to carry out his communal ideas") & Catholic Encyclopedia ("The Prophet commanded absolute submission to the imâm. In no case was the sword to be raised against him.") do so.

Given all these, you suggest a theory in which those 7 scholars have all written POV on that instance. Well, you need to substansiate your theory. That's my problem. People just guess well may be it is this and that. "May be"! But how can they prove their case. What is the "falsification test" for their theory. --Aminz 07:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I can easily add several dozens names to this list, but it won't add anything. NPOV, just like NOR, is a policy specific to Wikipedia; scholars don't abide by it, not are they expected to refrain from defending their POV or not doing original research. Pecher ^Talk 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

More organized : [13]. I know you may not like it, but that's what almost all western scholars & Encyclopedias I knew do. Are you ready to defend western scholarship? ;) --Aminz 08:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Just a reminder, please follow the instructions for posting a new report as shown on the page. Paul Cyr 13:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.Timothy Usher 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Really, then tell him to lay off. The dispute is supposed to be moderated by User:Blnguyen while BhaiSaab has now got me blocked twice by making Vandalism and PAIN cases I was not notified about. He is pretending to be innocent to Blnguyen and then attacks me via cother admins. Also, do not vandalize your user page. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, no one "got you blocked" but you, by engaging in the precise behavior I've been advising you to avoid. Please consider again the wisdom of refraining from personal attacks. Thanks.Timothy Usher 01:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I got blocked is because I spend my time contributing instead of filing RfC cases and digging through user contributions. I also play fair and let the mediator take action instead of getting admins clueless of the situation to make impulsive decisions.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello Timothy. I've mostly finished the investigation into this matter -well it may flare up again - I'd have to say that I feel that your posting to WP:ANI about Dangerous-Boy's messaging to be an inappropriate move at the time because (correct me if I'm wrong) I don't think you contacted him personally prior to doing so in an attempt to clarify his actions and your concerns about them. As you surely know, that message board by nature is home to discussion of a lot of nasty stuff, so discussing their actions in such a forum may lead to unusual levels of unwanted and unwarranted publicity and considerable embarrassment over a minor incident, which is why I think you should have tried to talk it through with my quietly on your own pages, because the incident surrounding this list did involve innapropriate off-topic questioning of people's religious opinions and lead to widespread discomfort amongst many users. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 04:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC).

Did you see the "FundyWatch" page before it was deleted? The behavior seen in the MfD and since isn't a reaction to any recent event, but only continues what was happening on that page, and, I'd presume, elsewhere. It seems that several editors have come to view Wikipedia as a battleground between Hindus and Hindu-bashers, have developed a habit of denouncing and harassing their perceived enemies, and are ready to accuse anyone who takes issue with their approach of being part of the plot.Timothy Usher 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I did see it before and now. The way people conducted themselves in that debate clearly did cause an additional flare-up, because before then there wasn't a continual exchange of fire before but there was some later. Things were quiet before that, most of the stuff beforehand were by users like User:Lkadvani, User:Haphar and User:Subhash bose insulting each other and adding bogus vandalism tags to each other, and who haven't been in action in the last week. Holywarrior was added by to the hit-list by Subhash. The issue I raised still stands. I feel that going to large scale arenas like ANI and RFC (in the case of Holywarrior) are inappropriate before trying to explain to the other users quietly why the content and messaging is a concern.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm glad to see you on the case, and I'll leave it to you to handle the problem.Timothy Usher 06:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. At the moment I see lots of bad edits all over the place and offered an amnesty, and tried to give advice on how to debate and discuss and report grievances without making things worse with reference to their preivious acions but seeing as though they continue to nit-pick each others' records, I've come to a decision that I've seen enough and if they don't change their interaction techniques now then I will enforce the NPA per my usually strict criteria. And I would just like to point out a complaint since it was lodged before that this edit is unhelpful and denigratory to insinuate that it is a hobby of Bharatveer to harass other users. I haven't followed the Dbachmann stuff at all and don't condone him insinuating unhelpfully without evidence, (I told him the other day) but although I haven't investigated the context of the notorious comment, but I can see that it would rankle other users, so I don't think one should condemn users so quickly in this context. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 07:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, per this diff, I give up. If the lawful reporting of attacks is itself to be considered a sort of attack, such that victims or mere observers are placed on an equal footing to their perpetrators, then this endeavor is truly hopeless.Timothy Usher 07:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to irritate you or the other guys, or saying that Bharatveer's comments lately are OK, I'm just asking you to try and not make pointed remarks when you report a grievance to another user. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Smile

BhaiSaab ^talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

YOU MADE IT CLEAR THAT your defence of Pecher is related to politics. I do understand that Jews didn't have any state historically and were always living as minorities (and were persecuted in many instances) BUT there is lots of dimensions to the issue. Mixing these ideas with wikipedia is unacceptable. --Aminz 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your page, there is no political message beyond this: hate Jews, hate me first. That's all.Timothy Usher 10:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)