Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form:.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Acts as if he was entitled to revert an article three times per day

 * Self-reverts: "gotta wait an hour or so" 17:11, 5 June 2006 Peter Tatchell
 * Peter Tatchell edit warring between Irishpunktom and over several days, each clearly engaged in revert counting.

Frequently engages in reverting specific editors by name or identity

 * Edits labelled "rvk" or "rvkm", signifying the revert of an edit by :
 * 
 * Identifies Karl Meier by the edit summary "reverting known racist":
 * Edits labelled "rvp", signifying the revert of an edit by :
 * 

Uses his user page for inappropriate purposes

 * Revision dated 18 June, 2006 hosts the following problematic elements:
 * Polemical statement attributed to Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London
 * "Islam is an "Evil Religion", statement attributed to Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson
 * "Muslims - You are to Get Out of the UK" attributed to Trevor Phillips, head of the UK government's Commission for Racial Equality
 * "Get out of Australia" attributed to Peter Costello, "the Treasurer of Australia,"
 * "Australia will be Muslim in 50 years" attributed to Representative Danna Vale
 * "How much more respect can we pay a religion which is alien to most of us in almost every sense?" attributed to the Daily Mirror newspaper
 * "It's the fundamentalist and extremist mullahs and clerics who rule Muslim communities" attributed to a Daily Mirror journalist
 * Many other polemical statements concerning Islam on this page.
 * The tone suggest that the purpose is to influence the reader's opinion rather than to provide material for Wikipedia articles.

Engaged in personal attack on Karl Meier

 * 3 June 2006, edit warring with Karl Meier on his (Irishpunktom)'s user page over a reference to provocative anti-Muslim statements, long after Karl had agreed to remove those statements from his own user page.
 * Irishpunktom's evidence is correct. The statements were removed from Karl's page and Karl reluctantly acquiesced.

Has used his user page for inappropriate purposes

 * In February and early March, Karl Meier inserted a provocatively worded anti-muslim link to his user page. Special:Undelete/User:Karl_Meier (now deleted by user request)
 * "Dear Muslims, We are so sorry!!! " linked to a mock apology at www.danishmuhammedcartoons.com
 * The user page also contained a controversial anti-islamic cartoon (not one of the Danish ones)
 * He has accepted that this was unsuitable for Wikipedia.

Has sometimes edit warred

 * May 22 Edit war between Karl Meier, Tasc, Irishpunktom, Netscott and Raphael1 on Islamophobia

Abuse of "popups" script on related articles
This seems to be a growing problem and may not be limited to the Islam-related articles that are the core of this case. It might be a good idea to clarify policy on the use of automated tools, which in use appear to be similar to administrative rollbacks.

Note that these were identifiable because the edit summary was not altered by the editor from the default provided with popups.

Perhaps the real problem here is the lack of a proper, hand-written, edit summary explaining the revert.


 * 18 June Abuse of popups by Pecher to revert a non-vandal edit on Banu_Qaynuqa
 * 15 June Apparently edit warring between Pecher and BhaiSaab over categorization of Franklin_Graham, using popups.
 * 15 June Apparently edit warring between Pecher and BhaiSaab over categorization of Westboro_Baptist_Church, using popups.
 * Here (British_National_Party), here (Oriana_Fallaci), here (Pim_Fortuyn), and here (Jamie_Glazov), more abuse of popups by Pecher on related articles. All 15 June.
 * Recent abuses of popups in edit warring on Islam by BhaiSaab:
 * 

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

First assertion
I admit that I have edit warred too much, and will try not to in future. However, I have tried to engage with others on the respective talk pages, and revert when ignored on said talk pages.

Second assertion
Karl is a revert warrior.

Reverts by Karl
The following list is not comprehensive, and reflects only the articles I am aware of;


 * At least 14 Reverts on the Dhimmi article.


 * At least 9 Reverts on the Islam Template.


 * At least 5 Reverts (Not including vandal reverts) to Ayaan Hirsi Ali


 * At least 7 reverts (All his edits were reverts) to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


 * At least 18 reverts (Not including vandal reverts) to Ali Sina


 * At least 27 Reverts to Islamophobia


 * At least 30 reverts to Rules of war in Islam


 * At least 18 reverts to Muhammad as a warrior


 * At least seven reverts to Muhammad (Gave up checking)


 * At least 12 Reverts to Danish People's Party


 * At least 5 reverts to Islamikaze


 * At least 13 reverts to The Farewell Sermon


 * At least 6 reverts to Jizya


 * At least 8 reverts to Srebrenica massacre.


 * At least 14 reverts to Apostasy in Islam


 * At least 6 reverts to Srđa Trifković


 * At least 5 reverts to Armenian Genocide (stopped counting, busy)
 * Accused User:Cool Cat and User:Karabakir of being sockpuppets of each other.


 * At least 13 reverts to Dhul-Qarnayn


 * 3 Reverts to Muslim world (All his edits were reverts)

Karl did not remove the link in question from his Userpage
I added the link (to Karl adding the link!) on March 9


 * On March 29 User:Doc glasgow asked Karl to remove the link. Karl did not, instead he "added a warning, that the contents of the webpage that I link to might hurt the sensitivities of some people".
 * User:Doc glasgow again asked Karl to remove the link from his userpage, Karl again refused, saying "That's your opinion, which you are entitled to. However I think differently, and I am sorry that I'll have to tell you that I will not remove the external link. It's my userspace, and if you don't like what is there, then please don't visit it.".
 * Then, Doc glasgow, not Karl removed the link.
 * Karl then added a completely seperate link, one which Tony Sidaway described as "one of the most virulently anti-muslim websites I've ever seen, and cannot possibly enhance your prospects of working alongside other editors, many of whom may well be muslims." adding "Please remove it and stop using Wikipedia as a platform to attack Muslims". Karl then removed this other link, sarcastly claiming that he was guilty of a "thought crime", adding in its place a link disneyland.com.
 * When Doc Glasgow signalled his approval at Karls removing the link karl asked "is it enough? Since my thought-crime is to insult Muhammad and Islam, maybe I should actually get executed? What do you think?"

Third Assertion
David is correct, but does not give the whole picture.

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox
I created the article on Caroline Cox on March 1. Later that day David, who I believe was Stalking me (how else would he have known about the newly created article?) added some material.. While keeping most of it, I removed a small piece which I believed was only inserted so as to "Poisoin the well". . David reverted me and added more detail in that respect. I again removed the details that appeared to have no context other than to poison the well, and made some other changes. David again reverted, claiming "My version was better". And so, I reverted, informing David that his "version poisons the well, twice". David later re-adds the material, using the Edit summary "expand", where he added other material. Rather than engage in a protracted edit war, I left the material in. None of his reverts was explained on Talk. Then Hale-Byrne arrived, but thats another story. --Irishpunktom\talk 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * David, below, says he was not stalking me when he began editing this article on the same day as me. If so, I apologise for the accusation, but, it is honestly what I beleived was occouring. That is an assumption of bad faith on my part, for which I feel I must apologise. --Irishpunktom\talk 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

David Revert wars on Peter Tatchell
David has engaged in a protracted edit war with me (I admit guilt here) in the Peter Tatchell page. David describes Peter Tatchell as a "Living Legend".
 * David has reverted me (Only counting me) at least 46 times, either partially or wholely on the Peter tatchell article.

David assumes bad faith

 * When David reverted Maliki-sis at least four times, he accused them of being an "abusive sock-puppet" (presumeably of Me, though I'll let him state who). The abuse? - Saying Davids version was wrong. This set a bad tone, and led to David being accused of being an Islamophobe by the same user.
 * When on March 25 I reverted Davids POV Revert, I shortened POV Revert to POVerted, and said "rv Davids grossly POVerted entry" . David then accused me on committing a personal attck on him. He then said "Irishpunktom is saying that I am perverted because I am gay." Which is absolute nonsense. I do not believe he would have made such a ridiculous leap of logic where he not to have known I was Muslim. I did not know he was gay at that time, but I probably would have cared just as little as I do now.

David has Abused his Admin powers
While engaged in a revert war (With me, I admit guilt), David reverted to his preferred version at 15.17, and then the page at 15.18.

David dismisses calls for discussion.

 * When David altered the section on Tatchells relations with Muslims, reducing it by one third, I reverted, asking in the Edit summary for David to "discuss these changes first david", because to me "it seems like a whitewash". David instead reverted without discussion. I again reverted, asking "discuss these changes first david", but David replied that I was "talking nonsense". He also inferred that WP:BOLD allowed him to do whatever he wanted. I again reverted, asking "why can't you just go to talk, explain your removals, and that'll be that - why the need for conflict?", but Daivd just reverted again. Several hours later David did go to the Talk page, again saying that WP:BOLD was justification enough for his shrinking of the section.  I asked to outline why, and he has yet to reply.

Irishpunktom is making personal attacks and is incivil towards other editors
Irishpunktom has made numerous personal attacks against editors that he has disagreed with. His personal attacks has been made both on talkpages and in editsummaries, and he often make accusations of "racism" and "Islamophobia".

Some examples regarding his incivility and personal attacks:

Against me:


 * Edit Summary: paranoia is bad for a racist


 * Edit Summary: Netscott is not a racist, Karl is


 * Edit summary: reverting known racist

Against other editors:


 * Edit Summary: rv Davids grossly POVerted entry


 * Comment regarding another user on a talkpage: "...a Bigot? Surely not! Whining now like a spolied child, its pathetic..."


 * Comment regarding other editors on a talkpage: "I've always found it amazing how anti-Islamic bigots procede to inform Muslims of what Muslims actually believe."


 * Commenting on that Hottentot has been opposing his wish to have the "Cat Stevens" article renamed to "Yusuf Islam": ...this seems like yet another anti-islamic/racist crusade on Wikipedia..."


 * Label those that doesn't share his opinions "Islamopobic reactionary bigots"

Failed attempts to end Irishpunktoms personal attacks:


 * When asked to end making personal attacks, he has refused to, such as in this conversation I had with him: User_talk:Irishpunktom/Old_Stuff


 * Another time when he was asked to end his personal attacks, his response was: "...if you want to discuss why I view you as a racist, do so again on my talk page"


 * I have previously filed a personal attack report against him here

Irishpunktom has made offensive remarks against non-Muslims
While he has frequently accused editors disagreeing with his strong Muslim POV of "racism" and "islamophobia", Irishpunktom has demonstrated that he, himself, has very little respect for anyone that doesn't share his religious believes.

In an article regarding Islam in Denmark he used the degrading label "Kafirs" to address Danish non-Muslims:

Irishpunktom is a revert warrior and frequently violate 3rr
Irishpunktoms 12 blocks for violations of 3rr speak for themself, and makes it obvious that he doesn't respect Wikipedias policies regarding the 3 revert rule.

His 12 blocks for violations of the 3 revert rule:


 * Irishpunktom's block log

Some examples of Irishpunktoms reverting:


 * On Islamophobia: atleast 40 reverts


 * On Peter Tatchell: atleast 35 reverts


 * On Cat Stevens: 12 reverts


 * On Srđa Trifković 11 reverts


 * On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad atleast 15 reverts

Possible Irishpunktom sockpuppet Maliki-sis
There is more evidence that Maliki-sis might be a sockpuppet of Irishpunktom:


 * On The Farewell Sermon: he reverts to Irishpunktom's prefered version of the article

Like Irishpunktom he is sometimes incivil towards other editors and use editsummaries to make personal attacks:


 * Edit summary: Islamophobe. dont try to cover up this mans islamphobia


 * Edit summary: how can you add that racist trash and not be an islamophobe!

Evidence presented by Cool Cat
I have deiced to collect evidence after being informed on my talk page that Karl Meier had been revert warring on Armenian Genocide article. I will cite this revert war as evidence.
 * 12:32, 8 July 2006 - rv
 * 17:11, 7 July 2006 - rv
 * 14:15, 7 July 2006 - rv biased editing

While irrelevant to this case, Moby Dick (a likely davenbelle sock (see: Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick and Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (Stereotek being Karl Meier's other/ex alias)) is also revert waring with Karl Meier.
 * 23:31, 7 July 2006 - rv

First assertion
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring

Second assertion
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.