From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

Contents 1 Involved parties 1.1 Requests for comment 2 Statement by Tony Sidaway 3 Statement by Irishpunktom 3.1 Comment by Irishpunktom 4 Statement by Fys 4.1 Comment by Karl Meier 5 Clerk notes 6 Preliminary decisions 6.1 Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0) 6.2 Temporary injunction (none) 7 Final decision 7.1 Principles 7.1.1 Edit warring 7.1.2 3RR 7.1.3 Administrators 7.1.4 Civility 7.2 Findings of fact 7.2.1 Irishpunktom edit wars 7.2.2 Irishpunktom feels he is entitled to revert 7.2.3 Irishpunktom is unmoved by blocks 7.2.4 Fys edit wars 7.2.5 Fys abuses his admin tools 7.2.6 Karl Meier edit wars 7.2.7 Irishpunktom is uncivil 7.3 Remedies 7.3.1 Article ban 7.3.2 Irishpunktom placed on revert parole 7.3.3 Irishpunktom placed on Probation 7.3.4 Fys desysopped 7.3.5 Karl Meier placed on Probation 7.3.6 Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell and replaced with probation 7.4 Enforcement 7.4.1 Enforcement by block 7.4.2 Enforcement of administrative probation 7.5 Log of blocks and bans

[edit] Involved parties

• Tony_Sidaway (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves)
• Irishpunktom (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
• Fys (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (self-added)
• Karl Meier (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) (self-added)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

(Provide diffs showing where parties other than the initiating parties have been informed about the request for arbitration.)

• Here notification of Irishpunktom. A one week block recently imposed has been lifted to enable him to respond.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried (If not, then explain why that would be fruitless)

Chronic edit warrior who shows no sign of improvement over a long period (block log).

[edit] Requests for comment

[edit] Statement by Tony Sidaway

Irishpunktom has been blocked about a dozen times for edit warring--around half of those blocks in the past five months. His chronic misbehavior is soaking up administrator resources and is probably having a severe net bad effect on the articles he edits. The only question in my mind is whether or not a probation or similar remedy would improve his behavior to an acceptable level. --Tony Sidaway 22:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Irishpunktom

Dispute resolution = Block log? - Each case must looked at on its own merits. Tony's assesment of what is "probably" happening appears in fact to be the opposite of what has happened. While I have "revert war"ed too much, each case must still be judged on the circumstances. Do you want me to go through them ?--Irishpunktom\^talk 10:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Irishpunktom

This is a reply to the statement by Jeremygbyrne above (Clerk's note: This is an outside comment currently on the talk.)

Jeremy, Karl added this link to his homepage, with the summary "Muslims, we're soo sorry!!", or similar. --Irishpunktom\^talk 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Fys

I have found Irishpunktom to be an extremely difficult editor to work with, even when we happen to share broadly the same point of view. Specifically, when he dislikes an edit, he will often revert without explanation, and if reverted, he reverts again. While quick to castigate other editors for failing to use article talk pages, he rarely outlines his problems there, and when he does, it is in a combative way.

I appreciate that Irishpunktom has contributed useful articles and edits about Islam and I would not myself favour a lengthy block from editing, but his style of editing is aggressive and time-consuming. The ArbCom may wish to consult a draft RFC which I did not get round to filing due to pressure of work. I am considering adding myself to this RFAr as an involved party. David | Talk 13:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• I've decided to add myself as involved party, given the long history of problems which I have had with Irishpunktom. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 11:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Karl Meier

I agreed to remove the above link that Irishpunktom mention from my userpage months ago, and I have already admitted that it was a mistake to place it there. However, more recently, and several months after I agreed to have the link removed, Irishpunktom and Raphael1 has continued to make endless and very serious personal attacks against me on talkpages, in editsummaries and elsewhere, using the external link as an excuse to do so. Irishpunktom first ended his endless personal attacks against me, after he was warned by an admin that he would be blocked if he continued this behavior. If it is of any interest to the ArbCom and these proceedings I would like present evidence regarding his campaign of personal attacks against me. (see the report I filed on this problem here) I might also add evidence re his incivility when addressing other people that he doesn't like, such as when he labeled Danish non-Muslim's "Kaffirs" in an article that he was editing. -- Karl Meier 09:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerk notes

As a participant, Tony Sidaway is recused as a clerk.

[edit] Preliminary decisions

[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

• Accept. Dmcdevit·t 21:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept; we may want to look at the behaviour of Karl Meier, too. James F. (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Accept. - SimonP 02:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction (none)

[edit] Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

[edit] Principles

[edit] Edit warring

1) Edit warring is considered harmful, because it causes ill-will between users and negatively destabilizes articles. Editors are encouraged to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

2) The three-revert rule, which allows administrators to block for more than three content reverts in a single article in 24 hours, is not to be interpreted as an entitlement to three content reverts per article daily. Editors are not to edit disruptively, whether that is fewer than three reverts or not, and consistently making three reverts in a day, or otherwise using reverts instead of more productive editing means, constitutes disruption.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrators

3) Administrators are trusted members of the Wikipedia community and are expected to show good judgment. Administrators should in particular avoid actions that are likely to be disruptive. Administrators are not to use their tools in any dispute in which they are directly involved. They should not unblock themselves when blocked (unless in the case that their IP becomes accidentally blocked) and they should not protect pages in which they are involved in a conflict, or protect preferred versions of a page in a conflict. See Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, and Wikipedia:Protection policy.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

4) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other; see Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Unwarranted accusations and assumptions of bad faith constitute incivility.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Irishpunktom edit wars

1) Irishpunktom has an extensive history of edit warring. (evidence)

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom feels he is entitled to revert

2) Irishpunktom's habit of making 3 edits in 24 hours to game the WP:3RR (eg [1]), consistent lack of helpful edit summary or justification when reverting (often simply "rv" [2], [3], etc.), and comments like "self revert - gotta wait an hour or so" show Irishpunktom has a clear sense of entitlement to reverts and perceives reverting as a valid editing method.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom is unmoved by blocks

3) Despite Irishpunktom having a very extensive history of blocks for edit warring and violations of the WP:3RR, with 12 such blocks in the last 18 months, this behavior has failed to change. [4]

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fys edit wars

4) Fys has engaged in a protracted edit war with Irishpunktom, particularly regarding the article Peter Tatchell. [5]

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fys abuses his admin tools

5) After being blocked for a 3RR violation, Fys used his administrator status to unblock his own account[6], an explicit violation of the blocking policy. During the course of an edit war with Irishpunktom on Peter Tatchell, Fys reverted to his preferred version[7] and then protected the article[8], an explicit violation of the protection policy. During the course of his long-term edit war with Irishpunktom, Fys has consistently used his administrative rollback tool to revert Irishpunktom's and others' non-vandalism, good faith content edits.[9]

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Meier edit wars

6) Karl Meier has frequently edit warred on a number of articles and with a number of different editors. See list of relevant article edit histories.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom is uncivil

7) Irishpunktom is uncivil, frequently making assumptions of bad faith such as referring to other editors as racists and bigots for opposition to his edits. [10] [11] [12]

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Article ban

1) Irishpunktom and Fys are banned from editing Peter Tatchell for one year.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom placed on revert parole

2) Irishpunktom shall for one year be limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, he is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irishpunktom placed on Probation

3) Irishpunktom is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fys desysopped

4) For abuse of protection, unblocking, and rollback powers, as well as poor judgment shown in edit warring, Fys is desysopped.

Passed 6 to 2 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karl Meier placed on Probation

5) Karl Meier is placed on Probation for one year. This means that any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban him from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article ban lifted from Peter Tatchell and replaced with probation

7) The article ban (remedy 1) for Fys (talk • contribs) and Irishpunktom (talk • contribs) from Peter Tatchell is lifted, and replaced with Probation for Fys also. Any administrator, in the exercise of their judgement for reasonable cause, may ban Fys from any page which he disrupts by inappropriate editing. He must be notified on his talk page of any bans, and a note must also placed on WP:AN/I. Violations of these bans or paroles imposed shall be enforced by appropriate blocks, up to a month in the event of repeat violations. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 5-1 at 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Should Irishpunktom, Fys, or Karl Meier violate any ban or parole, he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the case of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year. A record of all blocks shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement of administrative probation

2) Should Fys be placed on administrative probation the Arbitration Committee shall retain jurisdiction over his behavior for so long as he remains on probation. Complaints about his behavior shall be made directly to the Arbitration Committee which shall after determining the validity and seriousness of the charge take such action as necessary. Complaints to be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Motions in prior cases.

Passed 9 to 0 at 03:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Log of blocks and bans

Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

• Fys and Irishpunktom are banned from Peter Tatchell under remedy 4, expiring 21 August 2007 Article ban lifted 21 Sep 2006, see remedy 7 above. Thatcher131 21:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Fys

• 20:35, 27 August 2006 Tony_Sidaway (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked Fys with an expiry time of 1 week (Blatant, repeated and knowing defiance of article ban) (edits to Peter Tatchell). [13].
• 9 September 2006 InShaneee (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves) blocked Fys with an expiry time of one week for continued definance of his article ban. Please note that his userpage is currently a rant stating his intent to continue defying his ban indefinatly.
• Banned from editing Westminster St George's (UK Parliament constituency) and all redirects to it for one week by Slowking Man (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). --Slowking Man 13:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Karl Meier

• Banned from editing Islamophobia for three months. May edit again on 22 November, 2006 [14].
  • Rescinded after consulting with arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 10:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom

• Blocked Banned Irishpunktom (talk • contribs) for 48h for violations of WP:AE#User:Irishpunktom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Three reverts on Muhammad in one week without discussion on talk page. [15] [16] [17] Thatcher131 03:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Blocked by Tom harrison (talk • contribs) for one week for violating revert parole. Lifted by Netsnipe (talk • contribs) on appeal.

1. 10:20, 24 November 2006 - removing part of caption added by User:Opiner 07:43, 7 November 2006
2. 12:08, 24 November 2006 removed material about 'having a child with a slave' added by User:Sefringle on 09:10, 24 November 2006

• Blocked for 48 hours by Briangotts for violating 3RR on Muhammed on 13 December 2006. Patstuart^talk|edits 13:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)