Jump to content

User talk:Netscott/temp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

I've encountered Proabivouac (talk · contribs) only a few times through their relatively short editing history in Wikipedia. Today, i've witnessed a massive removal of well sourced content on an article under the pretext of "removing junk". I reverted immediately their action and went checking their edit history. As an admin, I gave a formal warning regarding their systematic bias and POV pushing re their deletions of sourced material which i found through checking their edit history. I asked them to behave and stop their personnal attacks on muslims as they have just done before. (see details below). Immediately after that i received a challenging reply that i can't block them as i have no basis for that. (see my talk page) and most of the replies got an ironic touch. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome[edit]

I am wanting to see a change in their behaviour regarding the massive removals of sourced content and the high POV stances. A better degree of assumption of good faith is also needed.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

  • First edit - [1]
  • "Totally disputed" tag on the article minutes after their first edit - [2]
  • Gathering support minutes after their first edit [3]
  • More support gathering minutes later - [4]
  • They state in their first day editing that they asked for several days, and good faith asks that you accede to this reasonable timeframe. Several days when they had just started editing wikipedia on September 27th, 2007??!! Sockpuppetry problem here. [5]. Denying any relationship w/ User:Nodekeeper Is is the answer to the sock issue above? [6]. (Refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nodekeeper.
  • Removing sourced material under the pretext The problem with Sealed Nectar is precisely that it presumes the truth of the Islamic narrative, which like any other sweeping presupposition, is incompatable with objective historical inquiry. This is exactly why it received awards from Islamic groups rather than from respected secular scholarly institutions. All material based upon Sealed Nectar ought be removed from this article. - [7]
  • Presenting a sourced article on an Islamic theology issue to AfD just after tagging it as a totally disputed w/o prior discussion. -[8]
  • Moving a paragraph sourced after John Esposito to another section and adding the POV tag to the entire section! - [9] I stricked this as it was a mistake. The paragraph was moved to another section 3 minutes later. Refer to details at the talk page of this RfC. It was my mistake. My apologies. -- Szvest - Wiki me up ® 11:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  • A very odd POV pushing arguing that Barnabas Gospel was a medieval forgery and removing again sourced content. - [10]
  • Misleading edit summaries using the term "moving" while the action was "removing" sourced material. - [11]Same comment as the stricken one above - Szvest - Wiki me up ® 12:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this deletion, "Encyclopedia of Islam" is not a source worth mentioned in wikipedia. - [12]
  • Removing content massively under the pretext of OR - [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. This article was nominated for deletion before being speedy kept under the pretext of "Blatant apology for Islam" by User:Arrow740
  • Not assuming good faith and drawing correlation between religious persuasion and recommendations on an issue re muslim editors who voted keep. - [21]
  • Having little knowledge on Islam and its theology. They change the word "true" with "original". The sentence was referring to the Islamic discourse of "A deen al haq" (the true religion). - [22]
  • Another one on the lack of knowledge. - [23].
  • According to this user, this sourced edit was an "unnecessary edit". - [24]
  • Removing a picture as this non-notable image appears to have been retouched with a commercial app to produce a certain reverant lighting. - [25]
  • Removing sourced content as "rm OR". - [26]
  • Sourced material removed again. This time under the pretext of "tendentious and marginal claim and rebuttal thereto". - [27]
  • When it is not sourced, edits are removed because "it reads more like a manual for missionaries than an encyclopedia article"! - [28]
  • Thanking an editor for being their service to our country. Only gods know which country it was. - [29]
  • Deleting sourced material again. - [30].
  • Using inflammatory and unnecessary comments on muslims using generalities (...which I suppose is precisely why Muslims don't waste too much time recounting the deeds of Muhammad and his companions?). - [31]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  2. Wikipedia:Etiquette
  3. Wikipedia is not a battleground
  4. Wikipedia:Citing sources

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. My message on their talk page
  2. Their message on my talk page

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Asteriontalk 20:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aminz 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC) - I completely agree with the suggested desired outcome and with many (if not all) presented evidences(I can see some of the evidences as just giving the context rather showing disruption, e.g. the first evidence).[reply]
  3. A Jalil 03:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) - Moreover, this kind of language [personal attack] alone is worth a block.[reply]
  4. ITAQALLAH 06:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TruthSpreaderreply 09:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Striver - talk 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Sa.vakilian--Sa.vakilian 03:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Gareth Hughes 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bless sins 21:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. BozMo talk 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

User:FayssalF has never, to my recollection, engaged me in any substantive discussion, and this "formal warning"[32] can scarcely be seen as an attempt to resolve any dispute - prior to this, I wasn’t aware there was any dispute involving myself and FayssalF, and I'm still at a loss to determine what it was. It's simply clueless to appear on a virtual stranger's page, write, "This is a formal warning regarding your systematic bias and POV pushing," and expect any kind of worthwhile result. As I doubt FayssalF to be quite that clueless, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that what is being passed off here as "an attempt to resolve a dispute" was intended only to lay the groundwork for this RfC, or worse, that this RfC reflects his moment of anger at the rebuff of his heavy-handed threat to block. I really don't know, but I do know that if FayssalF had something to discuss with me, I am generally available on my talk page, or better still, on the talk page of the relevant articles (where FayssalF has generally not been involved). It's a shame that he's chosen instead to poison the well with this kind of behavior.

RfCs are meant to resolve existing disputes, not to create new ones. They are not meant to provide a platform for surprise attacks. Although I found too many points of disagreement with Itaqallah's summary to endorse it, I accept his comments in the good faith with which they were intended, and acknowledge that he's made some good points. Merzbow, too, has, along with his defense, offered some criticisms with which I agree; hence my unqualified endorsement. But FaysallF’s RfC is hardly more than harassment, is clearly not intended to resolve anything, and should be dismissed.

I address the edits to which FayssalF has objected in detail:

  • "Removing sourced material under the pretext The problem with Sealed Nectar is precisely that it presumes the truth of the Islamic narrative, which like any other sweeping presupposition, is incompatable with objective historical inquiry. This is exactly why it received awards from Islamic groups rather than from respected secular scholarly institutions. All material based upon Sealed Nectar ought be removed from this article. [33]
The book in question may be found here. [34]. At best, it is a source for what Sunni Muslims (especially Wahhabis,so I'm told) believe, and even so should be "treated with caution," per WP:RS#Partisan and religious sources.
  • "Presenting a sourced article on an Islamic theology issue to AfD just after tagging it as a totally disputed w/o prior discussion."[35]
I felt this article to be essentially a sermon, and so nominated it for deletion. Language like ""Islam distinguishes messengers from prophets. Both are divinely inspired sinless recipients of God's revelation." is unadulterated religious POV. Though this has been improved somewhat, Currently, the very first sentence of the article states that Itmam al-hujjah "is a term which is used when the unveiling of truth by a Messenger of God to his addressees occurs to the extent that the addressees have no excuse but stubbornness and enmity to deny it." That is blatant POV on many levels. However, I received pushback from an editor I deeply respect, User:Dbachmann, and didn't pursue it further. I agree an article on this concept can be useful, but disagree with the "inclusionist" notion that they are likely to improve over time. In fact, they are proliferating far faster than anyone is improving them, and it's not likely that they will ever be subject to review from the wider community. I believe Wikipedia would benefit if such articles were deleted, but have come to accept that community sentiment for now (naïvely so, I'd submit) will not support such deletions.
  • "Moving a paragraph sourced after John Esposito to another section and adding the POV tag to the entire section!" [36]
This material is about Muhammad's successors, not about Muhammad. The summary "In the areas which were previously under the Persia or Byzantium rule, the successors lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy and greater religious freedom for Jews and indigenous Christians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation resulted from the years of Byzantine-Persian warfare" is a rather non-neutral summary of the Caliphate, hence the tag. I would have used {{lopsided}} for that particular summary had I been aware of its existence at that time.
  • "A very odd POV pushing arguing that Barnabas Gospel was a medieval forgery and removing again sourced content."[37]
The "Gospel of Barnabas" is widely acknowledged to be a forgery. This argument based upon it is far too marginal to merit inclusion in an article as important as Muhammad, much less without mentioning that this gospel is generally considered inauthentic. As usual, this removal enjoyed consensus on the talk page.
  • "Misleading edit summaries using the term "moving" while the action was "removing" sourced material."[38]
False, as Merzbow observed below, my very next edit re-added the quote in another section.
  • "According to this deletion, "Encyclopedia of Islam" is not a source worth mentioned in wikipedia." [39]
"...however he asserts one thing is certain: "that something happened that transformed his whole consciousness and filled him with a spiritual strength that decided the whole course of his life. He felt himself compelled to proclaim the revelations that were communicated to him in a mysterious way."
The quote is sourced (and repeated twice), but is inherently speculative, and its inclusion is palpably POV. Perhaps one may disagree, but to allege that I removed it because it's from the Encyclopedia of Islam, as FayssalF has done, is a straw man.
This article, then called The Quran and science, as it stood prior to the edits about which FayssalF complains:[48]. I find it incredible I'm being taken to task for cleaning up after this madness.
  • "Not assuming good faith and drawing correlation between religious persuasion and recommendations on an issue re muslim editors who voted keep."[49]
As I wrote there, "100% is a non-random and notable correlation, or would you disagree?" Perhaps incivil, which I regret, but the article is sheer quackery, and was even worse then. I can't see any reason other than religious sentiment why it was kept.
  • "Having little knowledge on Islam and its theology. They change the word "true" with "original". The sentence was referring to the Islamic discourse of "A deen al haq" (the true religion)."[50]
There was no indication that any phrase was meant to be translated here, while my change to "original" makes more sense in the context of the following phrase "...had been corrupted over time."
  • "Another one on the lack of knowledge."[51].
"Muslims regard it as God's final revelation to humankind and view it as the closest thing to a part of God in the world." The language here was unduly dramatic and as well as uninformative, and I changed it to, "believe it to be God's final revelation to humanity." As with most of my edits, it stuck: there's no evidence that it was at all controversial.
  • "According to this user, this sourced edit was an "unnecessary edit""[52]
Actually, I called it an "unnecessary argument," which it is. The article already states that the Banu Qurayza were accused of conspiring with the Meccans without taking a side as to whether this was true, and this poorly-written he-said-she-said passage didn't do anything to resolve it. It only cluttered up the article, which isn't about the Banu Qurayza anyhow.
  • "Removing a picture as this non-notable image appears to have been retouched with a commercial app to produce a certain reverant lighting"[53]
From WP:IMAGE "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." This image isn't notable at all, and morover has been retouched with Photoshop or a similar application, hence the caption "Aesthetic photograph...". It's purpose is to make the Qur'an look like something more than what it is: a book. It doesn't glow.
  • "Removing sourced content as "rm OR".[54], "Sourced material removed again. This time under the pretext of "tendentious and marginal claim and rebuttal" thereto."[55]
It was not a pretext at all. To begin with, Ghamidi is being misrepresented. He did not actually say (nor is there any evidence) that Deuteronomy played any role in the decision, only that he personally sees it as consistent with Deuteronomy. The full quote from the source: "Angered by the betrayal of the Banu Qurayzah in the violation fo their oath, Muhammad submitted them to trial by the chief of the Aws whom they had requested to pass judgement upon them. Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, the chief, decreed all fighting men of the Banu Qurayza be put to death. This was in keeping with the Jewish law (Deuteronomy 20:12), which decreees the killing of every male in such situations." Ghamidi's observation is ahistorical, and relies on an incorrect interpretation of Deuteronomy (which is still morally abominable in my opinion - it refers to faraway cities, not to one's own) but most crucially it is irrelevant to the subject of the Sa'd's judgement, as is even more so the rebuttal to it.
  • "When it is not sourced, edits are removed because "it reads more like a manual for missionaries than an encyclopedia article"! [56]"
So it did (and as you observe, it was also unsourced). Example: "With increasingly significant evidence of a responsible recognition of its duties and rational assessment of its limits and capabilities, the Muslim community is showing stronger commitment to accomplish its task of da'wah in a better organized fashion." The Muslim community's duties...to accomplish its task of da'wah? Wikipedia has no right and is in no position to tell Japanese Muslims that they've a duty to evangelize their faith.
  • "Thanking an editor for being their service to our country. Only gods know which country it was."[57]
The United States, where I'm from and where Wikipedia is based. How incivil of me. As Merzbow observed, FayssalF's treatment of this diff suggests that he may have some prejudices of his own. I'm only sorry that I haven't had the time to follow up on my promise to PalmDogg.
  • "Deleting sourced material again."[58].
"Muhammad, according to Watt, at that time didn't have any dictatorial power that wants to conceal it through the choice of Sa'd." That's simply incomprehensible, and I honestly still do not know what it was meant to impart.
  • "Using inflammatory and unnecessary comments on muslims using generalities (...which I suppose is precisely why Muslims don't waste too much time recounting the deeds of Muhammad and his companions?)." [59]
Personally, I think it quite naïve to assume that a man who rose to lead all of Arabia and told people he was the last prophet of God had no desire to be remembered. I agree, though, that my tone was unduly sarcastic. I didn't mean to attack anyone, and don't think I did. It's a shame one must always walk on eggshells around here, but I acknowledge that one does. In any case, it's only my personal opinion; I do not make a habit of inserting my opinions into mainspace.

Zora's comments I find misguided. First, she says that Muslim editors "try to present a soft-focus, hagiographic view of Muhammad and early Islamic history" while anti-Muslim editors "are just as determined to depict Muhammad as a monster." If so, the appropriate response is to eliminate both tendencies wherever they appear.

But she proceeds to attack me for "polic[ing] articles for anything he thinks is too reverent or too kind to Muslims" - the very "soft-focus, hagiographic lens" about which she complains. Who can we expect to remove it, if to do so earns one comments of the sort Zora has put forth, and harassment by RfC?

Despite her characterization, there's no evidence that I've "depict[ed] Muhammad as a monster, "only that I've removed obscurantism and off-topic apologia where I've found them.

For whatever it's worth, I don't think the facts make Muhammad look particularly bad by the standards of his day. At the same time, it's not our purpose to depict historical figures as models of uncritical veneration. Where there are potentially controversial points in history, I think it's best to state them in a detached manner and move on, rather then belabor articles with reams of unencyclopedic hand-wringing and debate. It's rarely helpful to include moral value judgements, or speculative "what-if" scenarios, even where these are sourced.Proabivouac 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ednorse all of the above, especially the superb analysis of FayssalF's allegations. Zora's comment was a gratuitous blanket personal attack aimed at many editors simultaneously. Beit Or 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Karl Meier 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse all of the above; FayssalF has lied about me before, and I have no trust in him. RunedChozo 16:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Karl Meier[edit]

FayssalF/Szvest has proved himself to be an editor that always act and edit very much according to his own pro-Islamic biases. Personally, I am afraid that his latest support for Aminz absurd and massive abuse of referenced information, in order to create extremely biased articles and sections, that is basically nothing but a selected chorus praising Islam and Muhammad, might be just the tip of the iceberg. I would like to be able to expect better than that from an administrator here on Wikipedia. They should make a good examples regarding responsible editing, and should not make threats about blocking editors because they are involved in a content dispute with them: User_talk:Proabivouac#POV_edits_and_deletions. There is of course no problem with FayssalF believing what ever he want's to believe, including that the Gospel of Barnabas wasn't a medieval forgery. However, it should be pointed out that he is wrong when he blaming Proabivouac for edits such as this: [60]. There is nothing wrong with removing biased content that use and discuss highly controversial sources such as the Gospel of Barnabas, as if they where less controversial than they actually are. FayssalF claim that the biased content can't be removed because it is sourced, and again I disagree with him. Biased information that is used against Wikipedias policies regarding neutrality (in this case with a YouTube video as a "reference") can and should be removed. The diffs that has presented as "evidence" against Proabivouac, is almost nothing but a collection of appropriate actions against POV editing, original research and other inappropriate content being added by editors sharing FayssalF's strong biases. That FayssalF want to present the above as evidence against Proabivouac is actually the best evidence that anyone could wish for, regarding FayssalF's own biased and unacceptable approach to articles regarding Islam. -- Karl Meier 18:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Beit Or 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arrow740 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Proabivouac 08:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CltFn 08:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Str1977 (smile back) 10:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bakaman 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Beit Or[edit]

While Proabivouac could arguably converse in a more restrained manner, I generally find his edits to be fully compatible with the applicable Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. As Karl Meier has correctly pointed out, the evidence presented against Proabivouac can be better interpreted as evidence of tendentious editing by FayssalF and those editors who usually side with him. A couple of examples are sufficient to illustrate this point. For example, FayssalF claims that this edit by Proabivouac[61] was "Removing content massively under the pretext of OR". In fact, the removed passage connected, without any basis, two Quranic quotes and a description of a modern scientific view of the universe, so as to create the impression that the Quranic and scientific views of the universe are similar, if not identical. This is a typical example of biased original research, and I can only applaude Proabivouac for removing it. Another example: [62]. Here, too, the removed passage cited a couple of verses from the Qur'an and proceeded to claim, without a whiff of doubt, that the "Modern meteorology has come to this very conclusion within the last two centuries." That's both POV and original research; its removal was fully justified. And one more: [63] Here Proabivouac removed a tiny minority POV that the massacre of the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza by Muhammad was invented by the Jews themselves. Proabivouac must be commended for enforcing NPOV because per WP:NPOV tiny minority views do not belong to Wikipedia, except in articles about themselves, like Flat Earth. Furthermore, the removed paragraph stated "As mentioned above, some academic scholars think that Banu Qurayza had negotiated with the enemy. Welch, an scholar of Islamic studies, states that Muslims 'discovered, or perhaps became suspected' that the Jews were conspiring with the enemy." Notice how the article adopts Muhammad's point of view by calling Muhammad's enemy simply "the enemy", instead of a neutral description, like "the Meccans". The Jews are, of course, "conspiring", a highly negatively loaded word. The content of the two quoted sentences is identical, except that "some academic scholars" in the first is substituted for "Welch" in the second. This duplication looks susupiciously like a thinly diguised effort to drive home the "Jews deserved being massacred" message.

If Proabivouac is sometimes overly outspoken, his frustration is entirely understandable, as he is facing a huge wave of biased editing and edit warring, all aimed at improving the image of Islam in general and Muhammad in particular and vilifying Jews. In this respect, the following two comments by User:Dev920, who spent much time and energy improving Islam only to walk away in disgust, are instructive: "Right, I'm fed up with Muslims endlessly coming onto this article and having a go at me for removing POV. Wallow in your own badly written POV mess - I am never going to edit this article again. I'll remove my name from that disgrace of a WikiProject: do you never wonder why you haven't got a single FA or GA, and your members keep getting blocked? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"[64][reply]

and

"Thanks, but I'm done. I have wasted far too much effort on battling with the Muslim editors that I could have spent on something I enjoyed. I thought I might be able to encourage them to actually write at least one article worth reading, but they'd rather edit war, insult Jews, and get blocked than actually contribute anything useful, and I'm thoroughly sick of it. There's going to come a point when most areas of the Wiki will be at least GA standard, but it'll never happen with a single Islamic article. get out while you can. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)"[65][reply]

What I find most bothering in this dispute are FayssalF's threats to block Proabivouac (see User_talk:Proabivouac#POV_edits_and_deletions) with whom FayssalF has been involved in a content dispute. FayssalF is an admin open to recall. One can only wonder whether he still has sufficient trust from the community to continue to perform his administrative duties. Beit Or 20:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Arrow740 21:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- Karl Meier 21:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Proabivouac 08:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --CltFn 08:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Str1977 (smile back) 10:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bakaman 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. RunedChozo 16:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Truthspreader[edit]

My experience, while editing Islam related articles, suggests that the real problem starts when there is no respect for scholarly sources and wikipedians start removing material just on the basis that they perceive it as biased. As wikipedians are not required to be scholars, hence assessment of sources should also be left to the reputation of publishing press, which has published those books. Hence, to me, to remove a well sourced paragraph written using peer-reviewed sources should be questioned, when we are talking about Oxford University Press:[66], Cambridge University Press:[67], Encyclopedia of Ethics by Taylor and Francis:[68], Encyclopedia of Islam by Brill Academic Publishers:[69][70] Such behaviour can also amount to censorship, intentionally or unintentionally. FaysalF has already given some examples of such behavior. Hence, I do believe that Proabivouac needs to change his behaviour as it is not only disruptive, but also sometimes discourage other people to effectively contribute on Wikipedia with his inflamatory comments. --TruthSpreaderreply 23:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Aminz 23:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC), Precisely to the point[reply]
  2. Asteriontalk 08:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ITAQALLAH 13:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A Jalil 14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Understanding that something being sourced may not mean it should be included, although it does in this case. -Amark moo! 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gareth Hughes 19:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sa.vakilian--Sa.vakilian 03:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Merzbow[edit]

Most of the diffs listed above are simply misinterpreted by Szvest, and in some cases negligently so. I'm at a loss as to where to begin; I honestly think this could be grounds for an RfC against him. Let's hit the low points one-by-one.

First, we have the sockpuppet accusation. Szvest says that:

"They state in their first day editing that they asked for several days"...

Let's look at the diff: [71]. Pro makes two comments in this diff; the comment on top says "asked", the comment below references the comment above and says "asks". It's obvious the "asked" in the upper comment was unintentional, especially considering that Nodekeeper had never edited the article in question or its talk page. Furthermore, Pro's first edit is after Node's last edit to any Islam-related article, with at most a day's overlap, and at most one exception (an AfD). Note that a Checkuser request for Nodekeeper/Pro was declined because no suitable policy violations were alleged: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Nodekeeper.

Second, we have this gem:

"Misleading edit summaries using the term "moving" while the action was "removing" sourced material. - [72]"

Umm, no, in the very next edit to the article, Pro did indeed move the quote: [73].

Third, the Sealed Nectar removal was not done under "pretext", it was supported by a good-faith argument by Pro in which he claims that the source is not appropriately academic. I have no opinion on Sealed Nectar yet, not having studied the issue, but his action was not done in bad faith.

Fourth, the removal of that particular version of the Barnabas material was completely justified - it discusses a TV debate between two preachers, Deedat and Swaggart, and sourced to a video (plus to primary texts)!

Fifth, Szvest claims that Pro was "Removing content massively under the pretext of OR", and gives a long list of diffs. Problem is, all these diffs (with one exception) were just Qur'an quotes (for example, [74]), with no secondary source cited. This is OR by the most basic interpretation of the policy. I'm stunned that an admin doesn't know this.

Sixth, calling minor quibbles over the wording of certain passages evidence of Pro's "little knowledge of Islam and its theology" is absurd, especially since this diff, which is simple copyediting and removal of OR, is presented as evidence: [75].

Seventh, I don't know what this is supposed to mean - "Thanking an editor for being their service to our country. Only gods know which country it was" - but it sure as hell sounds incredibly offensive. (In reference to this utterly benign diff: [76]). Fred Bauder, a veteran who's a member of ArbCom, would I'm sure not be happy at seeing Pro berated for thanking a fellow American for their military service ([77]).

Finally, many of the remaining diffs are good-faith copyediting or removal of material that is sourced but not appropriate. There is nothing wrong with this. A couple are cases where I wished Pro would have tried to summarize the material or otherwise preserve it instead of removing it, but that's my only criticism of his content edits (and suggestion for the future). Some other diffs do show Pro commenting on the religious affiliation of editors in an uncivil manner, which is not appropriate (sorry Pro, but I call them as I see them). But overall he's a smart editor who I've had many fruitful discussions with, even when we disagree. - Merzbow 05:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Arrow740 07:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Merzbow is always reasonable, though not always right (IMO). Arrow740 07:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Proabivouac 08:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --CltFn 08:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Karl Meier 13:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC) I feel that Szvest should really be ashamed about the dishonest way that he has misrepresented the above diffs in order to attack Proabivouac. For an admin, his actions here are revolting. -- Karl Meier 13:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 05:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Str1977 (smile back) 10:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bakaman 17:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Frotz661 21:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC) These accusations against Proabivoac seem very much like sour grapes, particularly in connection to the Gospel of Barnabas. This is widely and independently known to be a forgery, so when Proabivoac rightly called foul on it, his detractors started grasping for perceived affronts.[reply]

Outside view of CltFn[edit]

I do not see any merit in User:FayssalF's request for comment on Proabivouac, which simply appears to be nothing more than User:FayssalF WikiLawyering to push his own agenda on the articles in question and trying to gain the upperhand in a dispute that he is partial to. I am not faulting User:FayssalF for having an agenda , we all do , but my suggestion is that concerned parties ought to discuss articles on the talk pages, and resolve differences there rather than sue each other this way.--CltFn 09:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Karl Meier 13:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arrow740 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Str1977 (smile back) 10:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Proabivouac 10:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Bakaman 17:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Aminz[edit]

In the following, I am only presenting one of my negative experiences with User:Proabivouac. There has been of course positive experiences as well, so please take that into account.

Some incivil comments from User:Proabivouac: [78], [79].

Elaborating on one particular instance:

User:Proabivouac calls the article of Encyclopedia of Ethics on Islamic ethic a "POV sermon" and removes this well sourced material. (Also please note that Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia of the Qur'an have also articles on Islamic ethics). [80], [81]

Diffs in which the user removes a well-sourced section to Encyclopedia of Ethics. [82], [83],[84]. (please note that Proab made these three reverts while the section was just started.)

Please have a look at the last version of this section: [85]. It is sourced to Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia of Ethics, two prestigous academic source. In reply to efforts to develop this section Proabivouac says: [86], hence he believes the whole section should be removed.

This edits of Proabivouac gives a further insight: [87] which I suppose is precisely why Muslims don't waste too much time recounting the deeds of Muhammad and his companions?. First of all, the sentence was sourced to Encyclopedia of Ethics. The sentence is ironic. It seems that he is rejecting the claim made and hence saying that Muhammad's supreme goal of a life was performance of the deeds that would make next generations(i.e. Muslims) remember it.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Gareth Hughes 20:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Itaqallah[edit]

my experience with User:Proabivouac starts from pretty much his first day (with that account) on wikipedia. it became apparent to me that Proabivouac clearly had significant past experience, not many can know enough to discuss elaborately about "NPOV material" (or even use such an acronym) with their very first edit, and clearly knew enough to discreetly contact editors of a similar opinion to him within an hour or so of establishing an account on wikipedia.[88][89] do i think he is a sock? i did, although i don't believe so anymore, though i do believe he has past experience on WP.

we both participated in a rather ugly and heated dispute over at Muhammad as a diplomat (the remnants of which still exist), i found engaging with him a little unpleasant. what i found most disingenuous (apart from the first edit) was the rather aggressive manner in how he approached a popular biography of Muhammad, written by an esteemed Islamic scholar, and endorsed by the Islamic University of Medina which specialises in a number of academic disciplines related to Islamic studies, including having a research department on sira in which the author worked and produced a few papers.

of course, he may have disagreed with some of the conclusions, or even premises, of the book; but i found his approach of attempting to purge such a work from the face of wikipedia entirely rather extreme, and disheartening. this, in my view, amounted to a complete violation of WP:NPOV, which caters for the presentation of all substantial POVs. there may have been a few wording problems in the article, but that did not merit forceful exclusion. what also disturbed me to an extent was how he, in my opinion, attempted to cross-post this dispute all over other pages in a slanted manner, in order to invite editorial judgement on the book based solely upon the contents he linked to or an extract of it he provided, which in any case would be ill informed. i saw this as an attempt to goad editors into becoming prejudiced by what they found disagreeable in the content, and subsequently siding with him based upon that contention ( e.g.[90][91][92], there are other examples similar to this).

i wouldn't say these disputes are done and dusted, but i think some of what i found objectionable is evident in more recent disputes he has engaged in with other articles. i feel the contentions raised by Szvest, and especially those concerning the recent exchange between the two, does merit some sort of outside review. however, there are other editors of a similar skew to Proabivouac, who have incidentally participated in this RfC, whose actions come across as far more questionable and are more worthy of being scrutinised under a RfC; and perhaps some time in the future we may be able to conduct such RfCs if such behaviour persists.

some of his removals (of unsourced material) seem to come down to how he interprets the correct treatment of OR. we had discussed this before, where he provided the well-known cite from Jimbo stating that unsubstantiated comments should be aggressively removed, although i pointed out that this seemed to be in relation to biographical articles and more precisely WP:BLP. it is possible that extensive removal of content (i.e. [93]), without first trying to tweak it and add citations, is down to this (rather puritanical, in my opinion) interpretation of WP:OR. assuming he entertains this view: i disagree here. there is plenty of material on wikipedia that remains unsourced. the solution is not always to remove it, as improving it where appropriate is far more beneficial. i also feel that his approach of seeing himself in a perpetual war against pro-Muslim POV, results in him sometimes endorsing edits which swing totally the other way,[94] or making inappropriate comments, whereas i feel a measured response would be to not maintain as reactionary a stance.

this leads me onto commenting on the more recent dispute which seems to have resulted in the establishment of the RfC. i would state that some of the diffs that Szvest has provided are not the best to illustrate his concerns, and i partially agree with Merzbow above when he says some of the diffs have been overstated, though edits like these: [95][96] do warrant rebuke. sometimes his editing can come across as rather coarse, and contrary to Beit Or above a number of these simply cannot be construed as a defense of NPOV, even if they are well-intended, such as the removal of citations to Esposito (even if some of what he says sounds like apologetics, there is still a duty to reflect it especially when such sentiments are not of "tiny minorities" as Beit Or dubs) or some of the other diffs provided by Szvest and TruthSpreader.

i think the recent scrap with Szvest is unfortunate for both sides. i see that Szvest warned Proabivouac about deleting a section on the Islam article.[97] i personally think a sect along those lines was reasonable in the article, nothing some tweaking couldn't fix. did it merit complete removal? no, and i feel that Szvest was correct in approaching Proabivouac on the matter. now comes the manner of the approach: i can see why Szvest may have adopted a slightly more assertive stance in addressing Proabivouac, in the light of the comments earlier on his talk page that were being cited as well as what could be seen as inappropriate editing. i think the manner could have been toned down however, as we are all aware that strong words will elicit a strong response. and a strong response is exactly what materialised, and this is where a less volatile response from Proabivouac would have been sufficient and probably succeeded in de-escalating the situation. this did not happen, and some highly confrontational comments ensued.

despite some of my contentions with Proabivouac, and i do not say this grudgingly at all, i have found him at times to be a fair (on one occasion graciously so[98][99]), considerate and generally thoughtful editor. i have also found that it is possible to work with him on articles, whereas previously i felt it was very difficult for us to see eye to eye on anything. i only hope that he takes that extra step in resolving to help defuse disputes with editors he may personally regard poorly, instead of what seems to be contributing to their escalation. it is also my request (and a reminder to myself) that he utilizes the talk page before entering what may spiral into edit warring, and that he steer away from comments which come across as inappropriate.

to end, i am also a little disappointed with other comments on this RfC, some of them clearly possess an air of axe-grinding and selective analysis to dismiss Szvest's assertions. clearly, some editors are hoping to go for the jugular by speciously overstating any fault by Szvest,[100] and i find that deplorable and quite disgusting.

apologies for the verbosity of my comments. ITAQALLAH 13:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Aminz 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC) - I have a more estimate of Szvest's warning though.[reply]
  2. Gareth Hughes 20:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Excellent summary. I hope as an outcome we will all have learned something and become more careful and considerate of others. As far as I can see Svest was right to warn this editor, but a warning is only a warning and I'm sure I will be able to work with Proabivouac in the future.Itsmejudith 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sa.vakilian-- 03:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Zora[edit]

Many Islam-related articles are a mess due to aggressive POV-warring by both sides. The Muslim editors do try to present a soft-focus, hagiographic view of Muhammad and early Islamic history; the anti-Muslim editors are just as determined to depict Muhammad as a monster and seem to take delight in taunting and harassing the Muslim editors. Proabivouac is one of the more aggressive, sarcastic, rules-lawyering, and uncivil of the anti-Muslims. So far as I can tell, he doesn't do research, he doesn't write articles -- he just polices articles for anything he thinks is too reverent or too kind to Muslims, or adds material, like pictures of Muhammad, calculated to offend. However, he's canny about this; he avoids rules violations. It's hard to police an attitude. I don't think Svest's complaint stands on the grounds that he gave (unless it's sockpuppetry) but I understand the feelings that gave rise to the RFC and to some extent share them. Zora 19:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. TruthSpreaderreply 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although simply policing articles for broken rules isn't necessarily bad, he goes far beyond that. -Amark moo! 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Feer 13:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It's time the encyclopedia took action to undo the welding together of different blocks that Zora describes. I suspect that Zora's description of the two blocks is slightly out of date and there is some hope for mutual understanding. It is only a few of the Muslim editors who resist the inclusion of anything critical about Islam. I don't think Proabivouac quite realises that yet. He seems to be ever on the alert for wording that elevates Islamic religious belief to the status of truth, which is actually OK, so long as he can also give people an opportunity to explain what they really mean and hammer out a consensus with them. I'd like to see WikiProject Religion taking a role in fostering understanding between these different groups of editors.194.81.199.53 13:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by BostonMA[edit]

Although numerous editors have commented on this RfC, it is notable that

  • as of the time of this comment, there are no signatures certifying the basis of this dispute
  • as of the time of this comment, the evidence of attempts to resolve this dispute prior to an RfC according to the dispute resolution process described at WP:DR are not what one might expect prior to the filing of an RfC. In particular, evidence of negotiation have not been presented.

--BostonMA talk 12:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Threats do not count as trying and failing to resolve a dispute. Beit Or 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This section evidences that FayssalF made no attempt to discuss the material in question.Proabivouac 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree that with point number 1 BUT disagree with point number 2. This RfC is a gracious one. If I were to file an RfC against someone who 5 hours ago has insulted me, I would have certainly added civility issue in my Desired outcome. But FaysaalF's desired outcome contains 1. massive removals of sourced content(refering to removal of material sourced to notable Muslim sources, or to prestigous western academic ones on the basis of being unencyclopedic), and the high POV stances(e.g. resulting from these views on the sources and encyclopedicness). Also asking for a better degree of assumption of good faith which is quite mild. He is not saying Proabivouac is not a reasonable person or that he is persistently disruptive or that he is a bad editor.--Aminz 08:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by RunedChozo[edit]

I've encountered FayssalF once. He attacked me for pointing out that Itaqallah was lying in edit summaries. He lied about what my block history said. He and his friends in the Muslim Guild decided to gang-attack me at that point.

That he's misrepresenting Pro's edits now doesn't surprise me in the least. Pro's in the right, FayssalF's in the wrong and ought to learn to behave himself rather than persecuting anyone who won't let his friends POV push.

  1. RunedChozo 16:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Lied about your block log??? [101]. TruthSpreaderreply 01:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He lied about how many blocks I'd had and he lied about what they were. Yes he did. RunedChozo 20:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netscott/temp&oldid=1143730059"