Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom

Comment by Raphael1
I know Irishpunktom from the Islamophobia article and therefore I can attest, that many of his reverts have been against subtile cases of vandalism. It seems pretty obvious to me, that an editor who puts this on his user page, has no genuine interest in improving the Islamophobia article. Another problem Irishpunktom has to face is Wikistalking from Netscott, who openly planned to attack Irishpunktom to get him censured as a Wikipedia editor. See also: Raphael1 10:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Jeremygbyrne
FYI, whatever this was seems to have been permanently removed. &#0151; JEREMY 16:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Tom Harrison
On 5 June I blocked Irishpunktom for disruptive edit warring on Peter Tatchell. He presented what seemed to me a good case that he wasn't the only one edit warring, so I unblocked him and protected the page instead. Discussion, cautions, and warnings on ANI followed.,.

On 8 June, Karl Meier told me that Irishpunktom was edit warring on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I checked and found that to be the case. I blocked Irishpunktom for one week. On his talk page, he said he thought that was harsh but fair. At Tony Sidaway's suggestion, I unblocked him shortly after that so he could respond to the arbitration. 

I think Irishpunktom has come to regard his frequent 3rr blocks as the cost of doing business. It's hard to imagine that any other form of dispute resolution would be useful. Tom Harrison Talk 19:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Jersey Devil
I have not had direct participation in editing articles which Irishpunktom edits but I have had several encounters with him and have found him to be aggresive and sometimes uncivl. In one dispute in which I had with another user which he objected to I showed him diffs of the aforementioned user incorrectly claiming "vandalism" in edit summaries. To this Irishpunktom responded in my talk page with the header "Stop being a Vandal" stating that I was lying about those false "rv vandalism" edit summaries (you can look at them and judge for yourself). Until now I was really unaware of any other problems with this user aside from occasional hostility but after reviewing his blocking log and the revert wars in which he has participated despite being warned several times before not to I do think some action should be taken. The simplest solution would just be to give admins the right to give this user an extended block for any other revert wars in which he participates.--Jersey Devil 07:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Sikandarji
I have worked with Irishpunktom on Babur and Mughal Empire, and have never had any problems, even though we don't always fully agree about certain issues. We had a lengthy dispute with User:Tajik which was discussed extensively (very extensively)! on the Talk page, without descending into revert-warring or abuse on his part. Irishpunktom's style can be a little abrasive at times, but he is a bonafide wikipedian who works hard to improve articles, and has provided extensive references to scholarly work in his edits on Babur. Sikandarji 13:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved party Bazzajf
User:Sikandargi states "Irishpunktom's style can be a little abrasive at times, but he is a bonafide wikipedian who works hard to improve articles". This statement is laughable. Some of you need to wake up and smell the coffee, this guy is obviously not a bonafide Wikipedian, he is a "Wikipedian" whose only interest is to advance his own political view and impose it on various articles. WP could do without him, he's a numpty, plain and simple. Bazzajf 14:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Second statement by Sikandarji

 * This is a reply to the statement by Bazzajf above

Look, I can only comment on my own experience of him, which as I say, does not indicate to me that there are any grounds for banning him. I am by no means an uncritical admirer of Islam, and, for instance, we disagree on the validity and coherence of much of Edward Said's writing, but he has never attempted to vandalise or otherwise revert my changes to that page. Looking at some of his edits on other pages, it seems to me that some of his more implacable opponents could learn a few lessons in the importance of courtesy and reasoned argument, rather than making knee-jerk assumptions about an edit on the basis of who made it. Sikandarji 15:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Cool Cat
I do not know much about Irishpunktom's contributions, however I had first hand experience with Karl Meier on a variety of topics. He has been found to be stalking me as per Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek. After the case was closed I had to tolerate more stalking. This edit probably summirises it. Karl did eventualy left me alone to seek 'more easy prey' as I had/have an arbitration case restricting them to a degree as well as mentors to talk to.

In any case I had made a quick review of Karl's edits. Here are my findings: -- Cat out 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Karl revert wars frequently, always however just short of that 4th revert tricking the system. On one coasion he was reverting User:Anonymous editor on Ali Sina . I do not care about the content dispute but a post on some random forum is hardly article worthy.
 * He is for example quite active on 3rr page reporting a selective group of editors he 'targets'. He reported Irishpunktom on an article he wasnt editing at the time. Did he accidentaly stumbled upon the article and hecked history to notice the rever war? Was the report a coincidence?
 * I would not call such a link on ones userpage a peace offering. Userpages supposed to help us write a better encyclopedia, not a tool for trolling/infuriating people. Having sucha link on ones userpage while editing articles such as Islamophobia is just asking for troble.
 * One other thing that should be considered is this. Karl had accidentaly noticed my post here only 10 minutes after my post... I do not have that kind of response time even with my realtime script highlighting editis wikipediawide.

Comment by BhaiSaab
Karl Meier has revert warred with many editors of the Muslim Guild, including myself. I'm not saying that only he is to blame, but Irishpunktom's interactions with Karl shouldn't be taken against him, considering Karl's interaction with others. I agree with all of the statements made above by Cool Cat. BhaiSaab talk 22:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Striver
I have edited with Irishpunktom several times, since we are both editors on the Islam related articles. I appreciate his work, specialy when he was one among many that saw Jersey Devils rampant afd's on the Islam related article, only on the grounds that i hade created them + some invalid excuse. That was the first time they met, and Jersey Devil startd to get a bad eye towards him. Karl Meyer is well known for his anti-Islam stance. In short, my view is that Karl Meyer and his friend have decided to "get rid of" Irishpunktom, or to use their own words: "censured as a Wikipedia editor", probably since he is one of the few Islamic editors involved in the articles Karl Meyer is involved, but of course, working against their aim of turning this into anit-Islamipedia. So, since Irishpunktom has had a problem keeping from reverting once to much, they are trying to "get" their weakest adversary. To be honest, i would never had even suspected that Irishpunktom had been blocked even once, and that makes me woneder if all his blocks are not a result of loosing temper in some criticaly controversial articles. We need more people that stand in the way of turning wikiepedia into anti-islamipedia. And that is a real problem, i still find the occasional newcomer to the Islam related projects complain about anti-Islamic edits. That problem is so severe that i personaly do not even bother to try NPOV those sections, not even when asked to help. Im glad that there still are some people how do try. What Irishpunktom needs is a mentor to help him avoiding doing things that get him blocked.--Striver 15:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Anonymous editor
I think the case against Irishpunktom is ridiculous. He does get involved in many revert wars but it's almost always because he's faced with users like Karl Meier and other blatantly anti-Islamic editors and trolls who are unwilling to compromise. Several administrators are aware of Karl Meier and his very strong pov on articles which he pushes with reverts. He's been blocked several times for it, and it's getting much worse. Every single one of his contributions are bigotry or strongly pov and he spends most of his time on wikipedia stalking editors like Irishpunktom and Farhansher around. Karl Meier is also abusive of editors who he disagrees with usually calling them names or accusing them of harrassment such as here where I reverted his edit to Irishpunktom's user page kindly telling Karl Meier to ask someone else to do it and he deceptively started accusing me of harassment simply because of that one revert. I don't need to link anymore diffs, just look at his contributions. I hope arbcom can finally end this problem with Karl Meier's editing. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 06:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Karl Meier in response to Anonymous editor
From the above comment I can see that that Anonymous Editor is still angry about me asking him to stop using his admin powers (in this case the rollback feature) to restore a personal attack against me on Irishpunktom's userpage. Our conversation regarding this subject can be found here: User_talk:Karl_Meier. He also accuse me of making false accusations, which I believe is not true. What is however true is that AE has made a false accusations against me in his above statement. First I have never called anyone that I have disagreed with any names. AE should present a diff where I have called anyone anything or end his false accusations regarding me making personal attacks, because unlike Anonymous editor, I actually respect Wikipedias policies regarding NPA. Another false accusation is that I have been blocked for my editing in articles regarding Islam. Fact is that I have only been blocked once for a 3rr violation in an article regarding Islam and that happend more than half a year ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Karl_Meier Anonymous editor's reply to this ArbCom case reveals his own biases. AE has often been engaging in very biased editing such as when he whitewashed the Banu Qurayza episode on the Muhammad article. A lot of evidence regarding AE's biased editing in Islam related article can be presented, and it should be no surprise that he would like to get rid of editors like me. I believe there is evidence that he is editing Wikipedia in order to serve his personal bias, and is acting against policy to do so. Now that he, himself, has entered this ArbCom case, I intend to present evidence regarding his violations of policy, when editing articles regarding Islam. Another thing is that I have asked AE to substanciate his claim about me calling other Wikipedians any disrespectful names. I am quite offended by this accusation which I believe is entirely false, and has asked him to withdraw it, unless he can find a diff where I do what he accuses me of. -- Karl Meier 19:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting "read" by Bhadani
It is a really interesting "read". Do we have really anti-Islamic editors? If so, we must be having pro-Islamic editors too! I would suggest that we should concentrate more on building the Project and assess and comment on the edits and the contents rather than on the editors. In case, my comments do not fit here, kindly delete the same. Regards. --Bhadani 15:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A general question
What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me the appropriate response to this question could vary wildly depending on the context. Could you provide some?  As it is, it sounds like some kind of set-up. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me be slightly more specific. Let us suppose that two users had a dispute, the dispute was referred to ArbCom, then the two users came to a full agreement on a settlement of the dispute of their own accord. Can the ArbCom 'resurrect' the dispute and continue the case, and if it does, between whom is it arbitrating? David | Talk 21:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * David, I would say it would depend upon all of the parties involved. If some sort of an agreement is reached between two parties in a given case that encompasses four parties then obvioulsy the arbitration case would proceed. Is this agreement between all involved parties? (→ Netscott ) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The most salient context is probably Requests_for_arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed_decision, which directly affects User:Dbiv (talk • contribs) (David). --Christopher Thomas 06:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, although there was a reason I asked the question in the abstract. David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What powers does the Arbitration Committee have in respect of a dispute that does not exist? David | Talk 13:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say we have the power to do what is necessary to prevent further disruption. What that is would depend on what the two parties had been doing and seem likely to continue to do. Fred Bauder 01:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Without unnecessary leading of the witness, if you were convinced that the parties had themselves done enough to prevent further disruption, then that would surely be that? David | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't try to cross-examine the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But your honour, this is a friendly witness - so I am engaging in examination, not cross-examination. David | Talk 08:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It does seem rather silly, in my most humble of opinions. There was a conflict, David proposed a series of resolutions in respect of that conflict. I liked them and agreed to them. Conflict ended, no? Not all of it, there are some serious issues in respect of me for which I expect the appropriate processes, but, for the conflict with David, which is now over. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

May an administrator take into account prior behavior?
I recently imposed what seemed to me to be a straightforward article ban on an editor who had been disrupting the article over a period of several months. The arbitration remedy is in a case that was closed yesterday and the ban doesn't seem to have been opposed for any substantive reason; only the procedure is questioned.

The case is Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom and the ban is on Karl Meier editing Islamophobia, on which he almost invariably edit wars.

I would like to see the Committee clarify whether it is pertinent for an administrator, in making a decision on whether to impose a restriction under a remedy passed in an arbitration case, may take into account the behavior of the editor prior to the closing of the case. --Tony Sidaway 01:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by User:Netscott
This WP:AN thread is pertinent to this question. (→ Netscott ) 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that under most circumstances, the day the case closes is the day the restrictions start and the day the behaviour has to change. Why else do we have injunctions?  However, if an editor attempts to get their digs in just before a ban, I suspect the committee will be quite willing to extend a ruling. In this case, I think, Karl will either behave - or not - in which case I'm sure the community will ban him quickly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable with the notion of judgements being applied retroactively; if the Committee had wanted to ban Karl Meier from editing an article for 3 months, it certainly could have done so as one of its remedies. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've rescinded the ban. On reflection I think this ban was not acceptable to the community. --Tony Sidaway 01:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, certainly, I think that "justice is blind" is not a useful process to use on Wikipedia. Sysops should use their common sense.
 * James F. (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Karl had not edited on en since 15th, and his only edit since then has been to reply on User talk:Karl Meier that "I don't care. I've lost any serious interest in the project." .    He has quit before, though, and came back within the month. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In reply to James F., I think I agree. There were other issues of fairness here that convinced me that the ban was seen as too aggressive. --Tony Sidaway 19:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed summary of consensus (comment by User:Newyorkbrad)
As Tony indicates, there has been a certain amount of discussion on this issue, which the community might as well profit from rather than just lose when this specific case ages off the page. I think a fair synthesis of the reaction to this general situation would run more-or-less as follows:

1. An admin should not impose a block based exclusively on behavior occurring while (or before) an ArbCom case is pending, because the ArbCom presumably considered all of that behavior in determining the sanctions that ArbCom itself would impose and the user should have a chance to modify his/her behavior in response to the decision.

2. However, in the event of misbehavior after the ArbCom case has closed, an admin would of course take the prior behavior that was the subject of the ArbCom case into account (subject to the strictures of the ArbCom ruling itself).

3. There could be borderline cases where behavior occurred after the outcome of the ArbCom case was clear but before the case was formally closed, but these should be relatively rare and one might want to run the situation by the Arbitrators.

Just my thoughts, FWIW. If anyone wants to discuss this further, perhaps this thread should refactor to the talk page. Newyorkbrad 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to formulate this as a policy but I do think we learn from this kind of situation.   My concern here was that, knowing that the arbitration committee had decided that his edit warring was problematic, and intended to proscribe his activities, Karl Meier persisted.  The enactment simply provided me and other admins with the capacity to act. However this offended the general feeling that arbitration remedies should be applied in a manifestly fair manner. It certainly doesn't do any harm, in this case, to wait for the editor to respond and become accustomed to working with the remedy. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If a user is brought to arbitration over behavior, which he continues during arbitration, and after arbitration, the remedy addressing the behavior may be immediately applied. This assumes simple continuation of disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 13:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Irishpunktom
Should enforcement point 2 in this case, Enforcement of administrative probation, be removed in light of the fact that Dbiv was not placed on administrative probation? Ral315 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it really matter? David | Talk 11:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference, the decision already states, "Should Dbiv be placed on administrative probation". It did pass, it's just irrelevant. Dmcdevit·t 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't matter; I was just curious why an irrelevant part would be included. I was under the assumption that even if an enforcement clause passed, it was not mentioned if the remedy didn't pass.  Oh well.  Ral315 (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't actually think anyone has thought about it enough to make a convention. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Renaming
I don't like "a.k.a.". I would prefer a search and replace job. PS: Is it in order to mention all blocks, or only those imposed under the probation? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless there's an objection here I am going to remove blocks not imposed under the terms of this ArbCom case. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 15:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification December 2006 from WP:RFAR
The duration of Fys' probation (enacted 21 Sep 2006) is not clear. Is it for one year (as for Karl Meier and Irishpunktom) or indefinite, and if one year, does the year extend from the date of the case or the date of the amended decision? Thatcher131 21:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NB - the use of the term "also" in the decision clearly implies that it has the same duration as Irishpunktom. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and ends on same date. Fred Bauder 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)