Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/His excellency/Evidence

message: She did absolutely nothing improper. There is nothing wrong with advocating a shortening of a block if it is felt is improper or excessive. And you cannot compare 2 situations like that. Her actions in one case can't be compared to her actions in another. Apples and oranges. She has absolutely no history with H.E. or with H.E.'s previous account before June 18th. She is a very good admin who generally doesn't block for personal attacks as much as others. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. --Woohookitty(meow) 23:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the section after you clarified what the evidence page specifically was for on my talk page. For the record, I am in no way alleging she did anything wrong. - Merzbow 00:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow, IMO your evidence would be easier to get an overview of if the links were dated on the page. I appreciate that you see the date when you click on the link, but it's not the same thing. Just my 2c. Bishonen | talk 01:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do that (shouldn't take more than 15 minutes). Sorry about my misunderstanding the role of the evidence page regarding the above. - Merzbow 01:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, doesn't bother me, and I bet it doesn't bother ArbCom either. Nice of Mike to pick up on it. Bishonen | talk 02:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom is a different animal in alot of ways. It's very formal compared to the rest of the project. So it's not a biggie, Merzbow. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishonen 

message: I'm not saying this is required, but there are Islamic admins on Wikipedia.  When I see the Balkan War on our article pages, I tend to know a few names to call on, as those people can tell me whether the war is being fought with actual information or just hostility.  There are some users who similarly monitor Islamic articles and have a reputation for being pretty fair about it (and practicing Muslims).  If all of this is really about one user's religion and his feelings that his religion is being mocked, then it would at least be a good thing if someone of the same religion with a good reputation for keeping cool could assure people that such is not the case...at least before we get to blocking.  After all, if someone were making fun of my religion out of ignorance or malice and then insisting, I might get hot about it, too.  No one should insult, and this is not an attempt at expiation, but did anyone go looking for, say, Joturner, or one of the others interested in Islam?  It might have done no good, but it is at least a step that could have been tried.  Geogre 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several respected Muslim editors who have tried to explain things to him; Aminz is (was) one. - Merzbow 16:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly recommend User:Johntex here. (→Netscott) 12:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Hello i'm newish to wikipedia and i don't know much about this proceedure but where do i put this?
Hi i'm one of the people that H.E. is accused of being uncivil to but thats not why i'm here. Its this;
2006-07-08 23:55:23 - "Aminz, you're nothing but a traitor to your religion, siding with the people who ridicule your parents' religion. Don't post here."
I wanted to explain to those unfamiliar with Islam that the above is the WORST possible insult. H.E. has called Aminz an Apostate and that is one of very few insults that could be equal to Nigger for strength. This comment when i saw it and still now makes me so angry and upset for Aminzs' treatment. He was a very good editor, that he was a muslim was of great help in several articles and though i disagreed with him on many issues but we always talked civily and reached concensus if possible. And he has gone because of this insult and i'm here to stand up for his right (and hence those ofeverybody else) to edit here without religious insults. That this was not a member of the KKK that said this is totally irrelivent. H.E. has also used the word Kike aswell according to the evidence.Hypnosadist 23:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it's appropriate to put in your Evidence page section. It's easy to make one; just edit the page and use the template at the bottom (i.e. make a section titled "Evidence presented by Hypnosadist"). - Merzbow 02:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the K thing was only there for a few seconds (a minute or two at most). You couldn't know of it unless you took the trouble fishing for it in my edit history. I wanted to get my account banned and this whole fiasco over with. That was going much even for that purpose. I got nothing against Jews, although you can't help but note the overwhelming representation of a Jewish POV in so many of the articles. I still do want to be done with this Wikipedia thing, but I need to voice my reasons for all this frustration. On the Aminz thing, that was unfair, but your comparison is a bit over-dramatic.I think he'll be happy seeing all you folks love him so much.  His Excellency... 05:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another question 

message: I'm sorry H.E. i do not understand what you are saying in this latest entry in the Evidence? Would you be kind enough to explain it in more detail for me.Hypnosadist 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: H.E. response to Hypnosadist's latest comments

message: I don't like leaving things undone, so I spent alot of my spare time drawing up my response to get this thing over with. It's been aversion therapy for sure...Are there any other steps, or can I just wait and see what happens? His Excellency... 05:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcom cases typically take 4 to 6 weeks to complete. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can stop now, the evidence page is not for dialogue and pointmaking anyway, it's for evidence. I'd especially advise Hypnosadist to stop arguing and chatting in his evidence section. It isn't helpful to the arbitrators in the least, and it doesn't make a good impression on them. Please read the instructions on the evidence page: "Please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise". "This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page." This is the talk page right here, feel free to use it. Take any polemics here. His excellency, if you'd rather be shut of the whole thing,  then don't take it anywhere. It's not obligatory, or IMO even very useful, to refute everything. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish there was a "sample" arbcom case we could show people. But yes, this isn't AN or AN/I. As I said above, it's much more formal. You have to stick to the rules or else the arbcom will either ignore you or remove the content it decides is breaking their rules. Not a free for all. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How long does this thing go on

message: Is there a FAQ that i should be reading?
PS Dear Arb's please move anything i put in evidence to here if it violates policy, you have my full permission Hypnosadist 15:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Evidence?

message: This is another example of H.E.'s good faith and civility, at least the stick is starting to have an effect in bringing civility to him.
Is this evidence Bishonen? What should i do?Hypnosadist 15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any diff relevant to the case can potentially be classified as evidence... I think Bishonen's point is that the Evidence section should be primarily for diffs accompanied with a minimum of commentary. (To this end I think judith's section better belongs as a statement instead of evidence). - Merzbow 16:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Merzbow, please avoid suggesting people use the "statement" page at this stage, as that page will now get little or no attention from the arbitrators. The statements were about asking them to accept or reject the case. Statement time is over. Judith's evidence is all right in my opinion, as it's concise, clear, and to the point. Diffs would have made it better still, but it's fine. Bishonen | talk 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... honestly somebody should update that guide with everything we're learning here. - Merzbow 16:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Bishonen | talk 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can enter whatever you want as evidence; Bishonen is just trying to help by pointing out what kind of evidence is likely to help make your case when the ArbCom members look at it. Concise is better, and HE has kind of dropped the ball there. "Talking back and forth" between evidence sections is really bad form, if anybody's doing that. Editorializing is best kept to a minumum. Make assertions and back them up with data. Go look at some other ArbCom cases' evidence pages to get examples. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it simply, there are 3 phases for users involved in arbcom. First phase is to make a statement explaining why you think a case should be taken. It should include whatever diffs are necessary to show why the case should be taken. Second phase is giving evidence. This is a very good practical example on how to give evidence. Section off your evidence based on what policy or guideline you think the user is violating and then give diffs that show the person violating the policy or guideline. It's ok to start each sectin with a short description of the point you are trying to make. But you should not be responding to others in the evidence section. Think of it as a lawyer presenting their case. That's what this is. You are not summarizing your case for the "jury" (the arbcom). Summarizing is the job of the arbcom. You are just simply presenting your case. The third phase is the workshop, which is here. No one has touched this yet in this case. The workshop is exactly that...a workshop. The workshop is where you put any temporary injunctions you want to see imposed or any proposed decisions or remedies that you want to see imposed. The arbcom is very good about discussing user's ideas with them. From the same case as above, this is a good example of a workshop page. The workshop page is more for commentary than the evidence page is. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: His Excellency wanting to curse me

message: *Where, if anywhere, may I make statements addressing the misleading interpretations of linked material which have already been presented?
*I am quite occupied with my non-volunteer academic work - until when do I have to do so?
*Unfounded personal attacks against me continue even on the "evidence" page.  Might they be removed?Timothy Usher 07:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave a note on one of the arbcom members talk pages. This is the list of arbcom members. Leave a note expressing your concerns along with specific portions of the evidence page that you think are personal attacks. Only the arbcom should remove parts of the evidence page. If you or anyone else remove parts of other user's evidence section, it's generally considered disruptive. Also, there is no time limit on this process. The arbcom does not say...ok...everyone has until a certain date to give evidence. It doesn't work that way. As I said before, 4 to 6 weeks is the usual timeframe for the arbcom to make a decision. Sometimes they start voting on remedies and principles of fact within a week of the case being opened. Sometimes it's 3 weeks or longer. Another piece of advice. Look at the requests for arbitration page and look at other cases and you will see how this generally works. You can also look at past decisions and the general rules that the arbcom follows. You can also look at past closed cases to see the ebb and flow of the process. It's all there for you guys. Just gotta look for it. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: How come only the negative sides of the editors are pointed out here? It is not fair. --Aminz 22:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what is going on here, but no one but Bishonen seems to understand what an arbcom case is. It's not about being neutral. The arbcom exists to look at evidence and make decisions. They do not take cases to hear "positive" things about editors. The only time they ever get involved is when user(s) have seriously violated Wikipedia policies. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh! Thanks, I was about to add the POV tag to the page :P --Aminz 06:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. I got a laugh out of that... perhaps an OR tag also. :) - Merzbow 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "No one but Bishonen..." Well, I tend to disagree. Merzbow has presented the evidence in an almost ideal way: every single assertion is short, simple, and supported by differences. This stands in stark contrast to the work of Bishonen whose evidence consists of lengthy and unsupported essays. Pecher Talk 20:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed 

message: Just read through the evidence section. If some of you do not use diffs or use the evidence section to give evidence instead of just making statements, the arbcom will ignore everything you say. Experience talking. --Woohookitty(meow) 06:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the warning Woohookitty, but i still have no idea whats going on here! There is no clear alligation as to what H.E. is meant to have done that started this process. I am used in evidence in a process i'm not informed of, i only found out about it by looking to see why Aminz had not editted in two days. My imput is then complained about for not being up to a stantard that is not made clear, then i'm told that i have to learn whats going on by studying case law and work backwards. The system here seems just based on mudslinging at those who have made the alligation against H.E. and editors like Bishonen  bringing thier POV about articles and claiming this is evidence, or just turning up to fight Timothy Usher. All i need to know is if using the insults like Kike,Apostate and Bigot(from someone who uses words like kike!) are "legal" on wikipedia?Hypnosadist 10:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The clear allegation as to what H.E. is meant to have done that started this process is here. I tried to make it clear to you what the standard for evidence was, and if you'd considered the link I gave you, and especially my point that you were confusing "logic" and "evidence", I don't see how there would have been any need for case law. But reading your latest post, any suggestions coming from me were obviously suspect (shrug). That's fine, I'm done wasting time on it. Bishonen | talk 11:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to disapoint you but i did read the link and it was helpful, thank you for it. Sheesh its not like i addressed someone for the first time ever in a condicending tone or anything! Or not shown good faith to the same person (shrug), most of my above post was a complaint about this procedure and its biases against editors who are not experienced or admins and that the object of the exercise seemed to be everyone throw mud at the people on the "other" side, with both sides calling in reinforcements to back up with even more mud. The side that can muster more (and better trained) troops of course has the advantage. I'm new here, an editor didn't edit on one of my watched pages for a few days so i went to look at his page to see why? I saw that he had left wikipedia because of insults he had recieved, i decided to do something about it! Decent people should not be treated the way H.E. treats people sometimes. I stumbled onto here and put my complaint there, this process is totally new to me and others hear are much more skilled at doing "this", back to my very first point.Hypnosadist 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a warning 

message: What I have seen here from these two editors recently look like attempts to generate content disputes with me and immeidately add them to the "Evidence" section, no matter how unrelated to this arbitration case this "evidence" is. It does look odd when His excellency all of a sudden begins editing Bernard Lewis, an article he never edited before. Folks, this is not a proper use of this page; case was accepted on the basis of His excellency's incivility and other disruptive behavior, not on the basis of your content diputes with me, Timothy Usher, or Merzbow. Pecher Talk 18:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually someone mentioned to me that there was a conflict going on in that article. I checked it out, and you happened to be there. Hardly surprising that I should be there, given how often Bernard Lewis is cited in articles I'm dealing with. To my knowlege, Arbcomm reviews the behaviors of all parties involved, and your POV-pushing, and Usher's and Merzbow is quite relevant to the dispute. If that isn't the case and you're not liable to face sanctions for your actions, I'd like one of the arbritators to let me know so I can get on my way arranging that case. To my knowlege though, this case is sufficient for light to be shed on those matters. His Excellency... 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your current understanding is correct; ArbCom can and often do choose to look at all parties. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: His excellency did not respond to my comments; maybe to something he perceived I meant. I have no problem with the ArbCom looking into anybody's behavior, including mine. I'm clean and have nothing to hide. In the past several months I've made immense contributions to Islam- and history-related articles. All of my edits have been well-written, well-researched, and referenced to reliable scholarly sources. I've always been civil with other editors. What I have observed, however, is that His excellency (and, apparently, Aminz) wants the ArbCom to ajudicate content disputes on Islam-related articles, which is something the ArbCom does not usually do. Pecher Talk 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no doubt you've made immense contributions to Islam- and history-related, articles. You have raised the quality standards of wikipedia by insisting on using good sources. I, personally, was greatly influenced first by your research manner and Timothy's advices and then by Merzbow's and recently Itsmejudith's research manner (H.E. made me familiar with some sources). Given all that I "claim" that you have misrepresented the sources on a large scale. It is not really content dispute. Also, I think there is a mutual feeling between us that it is really hard to work with the other one on same articles. --Aminz 07:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  There is an abundance of evidence that shows you have been found to deliberately misquote sources. I've only gone through a few months of your edit history, and yet I found many cases of editors exposing you for misquoting sources. As always, I disagree with Aminz that your demands for 'good sources' have contributed to Wikipedia positively. Throughout the entirety of your career on Wikipedia you've selectively picked pieces from liturature to push your POV. Your islam-bashing has been noted by Muslim editors and non-muslim editors alike, and your POV pushing on Muhammad is even noted on the Wikiproject:Judaism talk page. Well sourced propaganda. His Excellency... 18:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "I "claim" that you have misrepresented the sources on a large scale. It is not really content dispute." Yes, it is an assumption of bad faith on my part by you, Aminz. "Also, I think there is a mutual feeling between us that it is really hard to work with the other one on same articles." Agree, and i've just pointed out why: you assume bad faith on my part. I think we've arrive at the point where your behavior must be considered by the ArbCom. Pecher Talk 21:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no objection to having my behavior considered by the ArbCom. I don't claim I have been always right. I have made some mistakes on several occasions, but have tried to correct myself. --Aminz 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  From WP:AGF : ..course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith....This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. There is an abundance of evidence that you have actually engaged in bad-faith editing. In light of such evidence, we are not obliged to 'assume good faith' in the context of these specific cases. His Excellency... 03:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very next sentence after the portion you've quoted reads: "Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring."Timothy Usher 05:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it does. I hope this means you'll apologize for personally attacking so many Muslim editors by making insensitive and hateful remarks about their prophet. We'd finally agree on something. His Excellency... 07:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like your comments about Jesus? Do your even understand what "personal attack" means? - Merzbow 07:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jesus? That was one comment, and a valid observation. I neither called him a murderer nor a rapist. Clearly you don't know what a personal attack is. So many of my comments have been misrepresented as personal attacks by people like yourself. Bishonen's evidences illustrate this, as does my respond to your list. His Excellency... 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your previous statements in this thread illustrate why there is an ArbComm case against you for making personal attacks, because you still, after all this time, have absolutely no idea of what policy says on the matter. You said that "Jesus was a coward". Somehow you view this as a "valid observation" but statements about Muhammad by Timothy are "personal attacks?" Please see WP:NPA. Personal attacks are, by definition, directed against a specific contributor. One cannot "personally attack" all Wikipedia editors unless one names each one directly, or it is immediately obvious which specific individual editors are being referred to. Religiously offensive statements like the ones in question here may violate WP:CIVIL depending on the circumstances, but not WP:NPA. - Merzbow 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Merzbow, if saying "Jesus was a coward" is incivil, saying "Muhammad was a Murderer" is extra-incivil. --Aminz 00:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence presented by His excellency and Aminz 

message: Users have their political and social views. The statements Timothy Usher has listed are my views, expressed in conversation on my talk page. I am highly skeptical of Western evaluations of Islamic history. This isn't just my view, but that of many scholars, most notably Edward Said; who terms the phenomena as "orientalism". I don't think most Western, Christian or Jewish, scholars have been even-handed or truly neutral in their interpretations of Islam. Those who list themselves as skeptics (e.g. Robert Spencer) 'cherry pick' the worst instances or look for the worst interpretation of facts, while those who are apologetic (Karen Armstrong) lose credibility because they refuse to be critical. The editors on Wikipedia have largely followed suit. In both Muhammad and [Battle of Mutah, distinctions had been made between "Muslim scholarship" and "Academic scholarship", as if to say Muslims were never academic. This despite it being universally known that what we now call 'academic scholarship' is actually a western evaluation of Muslim sources. 
I know WIkipedia isn't a 'paper encyclopedia'. But it's essential to compare the articles with which I have a problem, with other articles from credible acedemic sources. There's a massive difference. Where most credible scholars would at least feel the obligation to evaluate Middle Eastern history in the context of a certain time, the evaluation of Islam on Wikipedia here is highly judgemental, with little regard for context. I'd ask people to compare Wikipedia's Islam-related articles to any other modern mainstream encyclopedia. There's a difference. 
I do get upset that Muslims now rely on the West for security and now scholarship, and I voiced that. Yes, a verse of the Quran even warns against that, and I stated that. It's a political view maybe, a social view, and maybe not one agreed to by most WP members who come from the West. It should be quite obvious by now the context in which such comments were made- the overwhelmingly condescending approach to Islam by some obviously Western editors. I don't believe in censorship. Not the best use of my talk page, you might say? Probably not. But there's no clear violation of WP policy in that , and therefore isn't relevant to an Arbcomm proceeding and my statements have not been taken negatively by any admin or fellow user as yet. His Excellency... 16:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "my statements have not been taken negatively by any admin or fellow user as yet" Except that Tom Harrison extended your block to one week for one of the statements presented here by Timothy Usher (as well as for other similar statements made concurrently). Pecher Talk 21:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidences presented by Timothy Usher 

message: H.E., Tom Harrison is not an involved party here. So, I think you should remove your new section about him. --Aminz 20:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section speaks as much of Timothy Usher's and Pecher's use of admins to push their tactics as it does about Tom Harrison's bias in acting upon such requests and applying his powers in a prejudicial fashion. His Excellency... 18:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to include a complaint about me or my admin actions in this arbitration, I have no objection. Tom Harrison Talk 19:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it can be done as long as it is related to an involved party as H.E. pointed out. But Tom, you are NOT an involved party. --Aminz 20:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the green light there. I've got quite enough on my plate right now. His Excellency... 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Harrison