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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Karl is a revert warrior.
The following list is not comprehensive, and reflects only the articles I am aware of;
I added the link (to Karl adding the link!) on March 9
David is correct, but does not give the whole picture.
I created the article on Caroline Cox on March 1[34]. Later that day David, who I believe was Stalking me (how else would he have known about the newly created article?) added some material.[35]. While keeping most of it, I removed a small piece which I believed was only inserted so as to "Poisoin the well". [36]. David reverted me and added more detail in that respect[37]. I again removed the details that appeared to have no context other than to poison the well, and made some other changes [38]. 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 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".
While engaged in a revert war (With me, I admit guilt), David reverted to his preferred version at 15.17, and then ((protected)) the page at 15.18.
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:
Against other editors:
Failed attempts to end Irishpunktoms personal attacks:
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: [42]
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:
Some examples of Irishpunktoms reverting:
There is more evidence that Maliki-sis might be a sockpuppet of Irishpunktom:
Like Irishpunktom he is sometimes incivil towards other editors and use editsummaries to make personal attacks:
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.
While irrelevant to this case, Moby Dick (a likely davenbelle sock (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Moby_Dick and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (Stereotek being Karl Meier's other/ex alias)) is also revert waring with Karl Meier.
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
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.