Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/His excellency

message: : Initiated by  Thatcher131 at 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The festivities continue, under more abusive sockpuppets:  - Merzbow 02:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2007 appeal 

message: Hello. My ID is "His Excellency". I was banned from Wikipedia following a conflict with several editors whom I felt pushed an anti-Muslim POV. The block was supposed to have been for 6 months. Because of sockpuppeting, it was extended to a year.
Several arguments I would make in this regards.
Firstly, my edits have largely been productive ones. Adding sources, removing bias, etc.
Secondly, the terms of the arbcom finding proposed increased sanctions, a maximum up to a year, if I were to engage in language offensive to a particular ethnic group (nevermind I was engaging in a tit-for-tat against one who had constantly been attacking Muslims, as evidenced in my arbcom case). A permanent ban was never in question. Given my offenses that lead to a permanent ban drew from my productive editing to correct for another editor's bias, who was also already banned, the permanent ban is excessive.
Given the permanent ban goes against the ruling of arbcom, and that it was the decision of a single admin whose actions have long been considered by Wikipedia's Pakistani muslim community (I am neither Pakistani, nor a practicing Muslim btw), it can hardly be expected that an editor would willingly abide by such a decision as a permanent ban.
What is particularly bothersome to me is the rise of general allegations against other users that they are my sockpuppet, followed by their banning. User:Ibn Shah has been banned as my sockpuppet. Admin DmcDevit apparently 'confirmed' he is me, which I can say is not the case. Admin jpgordon did a checkuser and found Ibn Shah's info did not coincide with that of several of my known sockpuppets. It is therefore impossible that Ibn Shah could be me, since my IP range hadn't changed since I joined WP. For a while, User:BhaiSaab was accused of being me as well, and Dmcdevit similarly found us to be the same, although a myriad of editors (ask User:Netscott) argued that we had both been editing for a long time and that we had very different personalities and editing patterns. My fear is that all Muslim editors from the east coast of the US (or however far this dynamic IP range extends) who exibit defiance to anti-islamic editing, will find themselves banned with the pretext for it being that they are me.
What I'd like is for a fixed term to be set which I could wait out, after which I could participate on Wikipedia again. 4 months, 6 months, whatever. After that, I can edit and be held fully accountable for my actions. It doesn't benefit me to have to edit under a mask. It doesn't benefit you to have an editor on wikipedia who is made to feel he cannot be himself and edit within the community's system and therefore has to operate outside it.
Re: "Community Ban" : A look at the community discussion (link above) shows there was never a conclusion to that discussion. Members of the Islam pages dispute (mentioned in my first Arbcom case) including Merzbow, Tom Harrison, tried to persuade the community that I should be banned. User:Ben repeatedly pointed out that my original ban was expired. User:Durova ended the discussion acknowleging that there was much more going on behind the scenes and that he/she could not make a conclusion yet. The few who did support a ban were those who habitually edited Criticism of Islam or other such pages to push the anti-Muslim POV. My point is, the community ban discussion ended with no straightforward conclusion. Rama's Arrow placed his indefinite block regardless of that discussion. The arbcom case "Hkelkar 2" shows he is in the process of being desyopsed (sic?) because of his lopsided use of the block to silence users across one side of a content dispute while barely warning the other. From the Community Ban discussion: It appears there were no objections to the motion to close. BhaiSaab (talk • contribs) ban is reset 1 year, His excellency (talk • contribs) ban is reset 6 months. The banning administrators are asked to log actions executed at applicable locations to include the list of community bans and and applicable ArbCom enforcement logs. v/r Navou banter / contribs 09:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by His Excellency 

message: The sockpuppets, incivility, and POV-pushing have continued unabated, beginning days after his ArbCom ban was imposed last September (first sock was ). See Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_His_excellency. This editor has been the source of more drama and disruption that perhaps anyone except for . In case anyone has forgotten what we left behind when his original ban was imposed, please refer back to this list of edits (presented in the ArbCom case) to which his targets (and they were many) were subjected to for months. (Recent examples: Tom is a racist, see WP:Fuckoff.)
There was nothing improper about the block extensions for socking, and about the community ban. The biggest issue here is that he has never apologized or even admitted responsibility for his disruption. In fact, he continues to peddle the nonsense that he's being ganged-up as a result of others' anti-Muslim prejudices, and that he's the hero. Tell me, what heroes make statements like this: "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots...", and this: <Name redacted>, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here."
Any condition of a return should involve nothing less than a complete apology, directly by name to the editors he's insulted and driven away, and at least a year away from the project with no evidence of socking. But there is no reason for ArbCom to take this appeal, the community can handle this quite properly, since there is now a community ban in place.
If H.E. wants to dispute CheckUser results, I believe there is a separate appeals process for that, at meta. But the editing patterns were similar enough that CheckUser was never really necessary (as several editors, including admin , agreed). - Merzbow 23:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The festivities continue, under more abusive sockpuppets:  - Merzbow 02:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Merzbow 

message: An editor executing an indef block prior to my closing summary of a community discussion, and the fact that no admin will undo that indef block speaks volumes.  Nothing inappropriate about the community ban here.  Navou 02:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Navou

message: * Decline. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/4/0/0)