Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Case Opened on 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:05, 3 September 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

[edit] Involved parties

[edit] Statement by Merzbow (talk • contribs)

Under this account (His excellency (talk • contribs)) and under his previous account (Amibidhrohi (talk • contribs)), this user has been blocked numerous times for personal attacks, harrasment, edit warring, and disruption. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] He has most recently been saved from two indefinite blocks and has continued to engage in the same vein of behavior. [8][9][10] According to his own statements, he sees the Wikipedia Islam articles as a battleground between "rabidly hateful" non-Muslim editors and Muslims. [11] Editors he disagrees with are continually subjected to a stream of incivility that brand them as completely POV or hopelessly biased (see above links). He claims to be standing up for NPOV while adding poorly-sourced POV attack material and deleting material repeatedly and against consensus. [12][13][14][15][16] In summary, this user has created a consistently hostile environment surrounding the articles he works on, and has been unresponsive to every possible effort to get him to reform. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Merzbow (talk • contribs) 2006-07-08 17:17:46 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by His excellency (talk • contribs)

Firstly, on the ‘other steps tried’: It was I who filed the RFC, and the issue was the POV bias on “Criticism of Islam”. No RFC has been filed against me. It is not relevant in the sense that ArbCom requires it to be. There has been no attempt to arrange one. There has been no mediation, nor an attempt to arrange one. The "Dispute resolution" page lists various other courses to take. No such course was taken on this particular matter. The ANI reports were filed by admins after issuing blocks, not by the parties involved here and not on these particular grounds.The third ANI discussion was based on Merzbow using threatening ‘warning’ templates on my page, and subsequent usage of ‘vandalism’ threats to secure a block. Once again, the ANI was submitted by me, and the issue isn’t an action of mine, although much of the discussion turned on evaluating whether or not I made personal attacks to justify the warnings he placed. Most users involved in the discussion in ANI felt the warning was wrong. At least two people see this as a misuse of the template. As such, the offense was his, although he falsely accused me of an offense that doesn’t meet the definition of ‘personal attack’. This ANI discussion should be discounted.The bias I spoke of is clearly evident. See Criticism of Islam and Dhimmi, bearing WP:NPOV in mind, particularly the bit on “undue weight”. I’ll elaborate on this later if I must, as it isn’t relevant at this stage.In Merzbow’s accusation of my action in opposition to ‘consensus’, it should be noted that in three of the 5 instances he cites as evidence (2 of them are the same), there was a total of 3 editors, including myself, with any opinion on the content. Of the remainder, there was clearly no consensus as the talk page will show. Besides that, WP:NPOV states itself to be non-negotiable, and as such cannot be dismissed, even when majority opinion supports something in contradiction to it. The distinction between a fact and an opinion is mentioned therein. “Undue Weight” is mentioned. “Attributing and substantiating biased statements”is mentioned. The violations of WP:NPOV was reason for my deleting of the content mentioned. All of these are regularly ignored by Timothy Usher, Merzbow and Pecher. I trust you will first study the content and sourcing of at least the two articles mentioned above. They do not read like an encyclopedia entry, they read like a polemic textbook.The very last block was not founded on an actual personal attack, except according to the view of the admin who placed the block. I suggest you review the basis of that block and reactions to it. In the one preceding it, even the supposed ‘victim’ of my personal attack said he didn’t feel it was a personal attack That being said, I have made attacks in the past, and I now refrain from making them. I’ve taken Netscott’s advice on refraining from personal attacks. I do, and will however comment on actions and edits, as WP policy allows me to. The violations of NPOV on “Criticism of Islam” and “Dhimmi” are obvious, as it is in several other Islam related articles. Someone needs to speak against that. --His Excellency... 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Though arbitration is the last stage of the dipute resolution process, in this situation it's the first formal process regarding this particular dispute. It's therefore reasonable that all parties here be liable to recieve sanction for violating WP:policy and disruption, not just myself. Bishonen requested that Timothy Usher's behavior also by subject to scrutiny. It is likely several other editors will point to Timothy Usher's methods of harassment. I've had few exchanges with Pecher at all, save in the forms of edit changes and reverts, so I don't know his relevance in this context. However, if he is listed as a participant in this dispute, I would like him named in the title of the case as well. A major part of my defense will be founded on the POV-biased environment that has covered the Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. It's hardly justice if this proceeding can only produce sanctions against me while not possibly doing the same to the other parties. Of course, I would be obligated to substantiate a claim that would lead to measures against these other users. It is in the interest of Wikipdia that my 'counter-accusations' be heard and have as likely a probability of bringing about a course of action as those against me would, since there is the possibility that my 'uncivil' behavior was in response to a bigger problem. His Excellency... 05:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Added by clerk on behalf of blocked editor. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Timothy Usher (talk • contribs)

Briefly, and with due respect, I do not wish to participate in any forum to which His excellency is also invited.Timothy Usher 00:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Pecher (talk • contribs)

His excellency's propensity to be extremely offensive and disruptive is getting from bad to worse despite having been blocked many times for that. Hardly any editor has ever been lucky enough to edit an article together with His excellency without being insulted by this user. Pecher Talk 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Woohookitty (talk • contribs)

I am a little bit involved in this case. I don't want to give evidence or anything like that. I am just here to very strongly urge the arbcom to take this case. We have a situation here where even admins aren't quite sure how to handle this. This is a classic Wikipedia nationalist situation, where passions are very very high on all sides of the issue and where I think we need the calmness of the arbcom. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're going to keep having this situation where his excellency insults other users, gets blocked, does this "I'm leaving" stuff, gets unblocked and then goes right back at it. One user (Merzbow) is about to leave us over this whole situation. And I'm afraid if it goes on for much longer, others will follow. I really think we need the arbcom to take this case and to have some sort of temporary injunction put onto H.E. so he can only post here and nowhere else, as all he seems to do is insult others. Please please please take this case. Rejecting it will just make this continue. H.E. is not going to change on his own. And the longer this goes on, the more frayed relations between admins will become and the more angry H.E. will make himself and others. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 20:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that I agree with Bishonen about Timothy Usher to a degree. I do feel like he should be part of this case as well, i.e. sanctions should be considered against him. As I stated on AN/I, he's doing the classic thing of seeing admin action as "taking sides" when it's not. Bishonen is just doing her job. And at this point, Timothy's attacks are just as against policy as H.E.'s. And that should be considered when taking the case. --Woohookitty(meow) 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement by Bishonen (talk • contribs)

Wow, I've never seeen such a dynamic request for arbitration..! I've no idea where it's going, so at this time I'll just suggest that the case be accepted if only to look into Timothy Usher's conduct towards His excellency and myself. The way TU has personalized and demonized my fully argued and motivated[17] admin action of shortening a block is... well, it's irritating, and it goes on and on. I reckon it has also amounted to indirect harassment of His excellency, since what Timothy Usher calls his "dispute" with me is merely an aspect of his huge beef with HE. (As for direct harassment of HE, I note HE's description of his own Timothy Usher experience, eerily similar to mine: "He has made it a point to go from talk page to talk page where I had participated and make remarks against me."[18])

Timothy Usher insists that my actions amount to "ongoing patronage"[19], and rarely misses an opportunity to refer contemptuously to me as HE's "sympathizer"[20], "dedicated enabler and champion"[21], and so on. Besides this he seems to keep a lookout for anything bishonen-related to complain about. Here's a little dialogue where, having been alerted by FairNBalanced to a small design on my userpage, Timothy posts this sneer and then asks rhetorically why I "see it fit to ridicule Christian fundamentalist beliefs from [my] userspace": [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] (note the charming edit summary), [27], [28], [29], [30] [31]. I was quite alarmed by the way he pursued users who reverted him on that occasion. When he was warned off by El C, he seemed to grasp the idea that he's not supposed to post on my page, but it actually didn't stop him from returning to it today, to post a link to His excellency's now removed "first harakiri" on this page, triumphantly "congratulating" me on my "tireless efforts to keep such posts coming".[32]. (Crossposted to ANI as well — doesn't miss a trick.[33]) My admin action that originally offended him so severely occurred three weeks ago, and he doesn't seem to be getting over it. I'm not requesting any formal injunction — I can't believe it's needed — but perhaps the ArbCom would like to mention to him that this behavior is not appropriate or nice. P.S., This just in. Bishonen | talk 01:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Statement by User:Hypnosadist

I've been insulted by H.E., along with my culture but what i am most angry about is his treatment of User:Aminz. Aminz has been on the other side of most debates i've had on criticism of islam but has always been civil and helpful in his editing, and i see no reason why he should be treated the way he was according to the Evidence. This explains why aminz is no longer editing. I can understand insulting people you believe oppose your every edit, but the insults and accusations he said to aminz (a friend) are beyond pardoning:

Aminz, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here. His Excellency... 06:55, 9 July 2006

Do you need more evidence? Then go to the evidence page now!Hypnosadist 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preliminary decisions

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

  • Reject: appears to have been blocked to a year (a decision I personally see no way to reverse). No reason to hear the case unless the situation changes. Dmcdevit·t 07:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC) Accept, as he is now unblocked. Dmcdevit·t 19:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reject Fred Bauder 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Accept Fred Bauder 21:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional: if the block stands, reject. If the block is challenged, leaning toward accept. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Accept. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 9 July 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] Civility/disruption/reasonableness

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably in their dealings with other users and to observe the principles of assuming good faith, civility, and the writers' rules of engagement. If disputes arise, users are expected to use dispute resolution procedures instead of making personal attacks.

Passed 8-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

2) Personal attacks are expressly prohibited because they make Wikipedia a hostile environment for editors, and thereby damage Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia (by losing valued contributors) and as a wiki community (by discouraging reasoned discussion). Wikipedia editors should conduct their relationship with other editors with courtesy, and must avoid responding in kind when personally attacked.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral point of view

3) Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

4) Edit wars or revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Editors are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration. When disagreements arise, users are expected to adhere to the three-revert rule and discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad nauseum. "Slow revert wars," where an editor persistently reverts an article but technically adheres to the three-revert rule are also strongly discouraged and are unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point

5) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. This is considered editing in bad faith. State your point, but don't attempt to illustrate it experimentally.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Staying cool when the editing gets hot

6) When editing on highly conflicted topics, editors should not allow themselves to be goaded into ill-considered edits and policy violations. Administrators in particular have a responsibility to set an example by staying cool when the editing gets hot.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is not a soap box

7) Wikipedia is not a medium of advocacy or propaganda of any kind. Editors have an obligation to neutrally reflect on topics and issues, including those that are controversial, but should not demonstrate a pattern of editing that in effect causes an article to reflect a position of advocacy.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoid bias

8) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore try to familiarize themselves with all three. These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Identification of problems

11) It is commendable to identify and point out problems with bias in articles or sets of article. It is appropriate to bring these problems to the attention of a project which is concerned with that area and to the attention of individual editors which regularly edit in that area.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity and reliability

13) A sober discussion of the ethnic or religious background of a scholar might be useful in appropriate circumstances; blanket dismissal of scholars on the basis of their ethnicity is unacceptable.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial subjects

14) Certain subject areas are controversial. Editing in such areas requires courtesy if the editing process is not to degenerate into unproductive conflict. Users who disrupt editing in controversial areas may be banned from editing in those areas.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability does not trump NPOV

15) Fair representation of all significant points of view may require use of sources of variable reliability. So long as a source is reasonably reliable it may be used as the source of information that might not otherwise be presented.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assume good faith

17) It is helpful to assume that other users are attempting to build a useful information resource, Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is unhelpful to assume that the purpose of other users is to impose a point of view.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Findings of fact

[edit] Nature of dispute

1) This matter involves the editing and behavior of His_excellency (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) who formerly edited at Amibidhrohi (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log). As a subsidiary matter are His excellency's assertions that there is a pronounced anti-Islamist bias in Wikipedia articles which concern Islam are at issue.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks and discourtesy

2) His excellency has regularly engaged in personal attacks, some directed at ethnic groups, "The Jews" [34] and "those kikes" [35], see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency/Evidence#Personal_attacks.2C_harrassment.2C_and_incivility. Personal attacks continue to the present, although in somewhat milder form [36].

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His excellency has pointed out bias problems

3) His excellency has pointed out what he considered to be bias problems to other editors [37]. However, the posts pointing out these problems have often been discourteous and accompanied by personal attacks.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concern about anti-Islamic bias

4) There has been concern expressed regarding anti-Islamic bias in Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Islam_topics. His excellency, nominal focus of this case, cites the articles, criticism of Islam and dhimmi, stating, '...the bias I spoke of is clearly evident. See Criticism of Islam and Dhimmi, bearing WP:NPOV in mind, particularly the bit on “undue weight”.'

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecation of scholars on the basis of ethnicity

5) There have been instances where the reliability of scholars has been challenged on the basis of their ethnicity [38].

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring and disruption

9) Articles concerning Islamic subjects have been disrupted by edit warring and conflict.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Usher

10) Timothy Usher has engaged in incivility and edit warring regarding Islam articles. In particular, he has personalized the conflict and engaged in harassment of His excellency. (evidence, ie [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45])

Passed 6-1 21:05, 3 September 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] His excellency placed on personal attack parole

1) His excellency is placed on personal attack parole, should he engage in personal attacks directed at individuals he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. Should he engage in attacks directed at ethnic groups such as "The Jews" or "The Kikes" he may be blocked for extended periods of time, up to a year.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His excellency banned

2) His excellency, having made one personal attack directed at "The Jews" and another directed at "those kikes" is banned for one month for the first offense and 3 months for the second offense, to run consecutively.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional ban

2.5) His excellency has continued to make anti-Semitic attacks on other users [46] during this proceeding. An additional ban of 6 2 months is imposed to run consecutively with other bans.

Passed 6-1 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His excellency placed on Probation

3.1) His excellency is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timothy Usher placed on Probation

3.2) Timothy Usher is placed on Probation for one year. He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6-1 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Muslim usages

4) Traditional Muslim usages such as "Salam, brother" or (PBUH) may be used on talk pages at the discretion of the user; however, care should be taken to not create a hostile atmosphere for non-Muslims.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enforcement

[edit] Enforcement by block

1) Violation of bans imposed under the terms of this decision may be enforced by blocks appropriate to the offense involved. All blocks and the basis therefore to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/His_excellency#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Passed 7-0 21:05, 3 September 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_His_excellency_21de.html"