Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

all proposed

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop place proposals which are ready for voting here.

Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain.

  • Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed.
  • Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
  • Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if he so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed.

On this case, no Arbitrators is/are recused and one is inactive, so 6 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties[edit]

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:


Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Banning of obsessive users[edit]

1) Users who focus in a disruptive way on an issue or subject may be banned from editing with respect to that issue or subject.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Preferred styles[edit]

2) Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Continued agitation by Jguk regarding era notation[edit]

1) Jguk has continued his advocacy regarding era notation with POV edits and edit warring at Anno Domini, see Talk:Anno_Domini#Removal_of_weasel_words.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Jguk continues to change notation[edit]

2) Jguk has continued, especially in instances not covered by the plain language of the prior remedy to change era notation [1] and [2].

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Focus of Sortan on era notation[edit]

3} From his initial edits Sortan has focused on era notation [3] (Note awkward change from "100,000 years ago" to "100,000 BCE") [4], [5] and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Evidence#Uncanny_habit_of_editing_same_articles_as_me.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Charles Matthews 16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sortan has stalked Jguk[edit]

4) Sortan has stalked Jguk, editing numerous articles shortly after Jguk, tendentiously changing era notation, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Evidence#Uncanny_habit_of_editing_same_articles_as_me.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. He has stalked Jguk, but reverting jguk's policy violating date notation changes is not "tendentious". Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Agree, the era notation changes are not all tendentious, but Sortan has stalked Jguk in general, not just there (i.e. [6]). See below. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not tendentious[edit]

4.1) Sortan has stalked Jguk, editing numerous articles shortly after Jguk, changing era notation, being uncivil, and otherwise unnecessarily harrassing Jguk; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Evidence#Uncanny_habit_of_editing_same_articles_as_me.

Support:
  1. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fred Bauder 13:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Still can't support this. He reversed Jguk's era notation changes, which is not the same thing as "changing era notation", and the incivility I've seen was minor at best. If the finding were simply "Sortan has stalked Jguk", I'd Support it. Jayjg (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Jguk has reconsidered the wisdom of his previous actions[edit]

5) Jguk has stated "I no longer see the point of my earlier activities" and has indicated that he no longer sees the need to edit Wikipedia articles solely for the purpose of changing date notations.[7]

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Still a lot of grousing Fred Bauder 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not obvious the bee has left the bonnet. Charles Matthews 16:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sortan appears to have left Wikipedia[edit]

6) Sortan has not edited Wikipedia since December 22, 2005. [8]

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Charles Matthews 16:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Fred Bauder 15:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Jguk banned from editing with respect to era notation[edit]

1) The remedy at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD is extended to include editing any page or article which relates to era notation including policy pages. He may make no change in any article from one notation to another, nor may he remove "BCE" or "CE" notations, or references to "Common Era", from any article.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note tightened wording. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Certainly, enough is enough. Charles Matthews 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Sortan banned from editing with respect to era notation[edit]

2) Sortan is banned from editing any page or article which relates to era notation including policy pages. He may make no change in any article from one notation to another.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sorry, JayJG, but I wholly disagree that edit-warring, even if "justified" is ever "invaluable". People could, I dunno, actually work on the encyclopædia. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Sortan has provided an invaluable service in documenting and combatting Jguk's obsessive era-notation conversions, which have now been the subject of 3 Arbitration cases. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure I agree with Jay, but there is no evidence presented that Sortan made any changes other than to revert Jguk. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. evidence? ➥the Epopt 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. as above. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sortan warned regarding stalking[edit]

3) Sortan is warned regarding stalking Jguk. He is welcome to make independent edits, but not to follow Jguk around.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is a big difference between enforcement and downright harassment. He could have alerted ANI, instead, he went around making personal attacks against Jguk like [9] and [10] (more). Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Charles Matthews 16:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Dmcdevit; Sortan crossed the line. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. See statements above. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

No other remedies required[edit]

4) In light of jguk's statement that he no longer intends to remove BCE/CE notation from Wikipedia, and Sortan's apparently leaving the project, the wording of the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2#Jguk_banned_from_changing_BCE_to_BC_or_CE_to_AD should be tightened as per remedy one, and the case closed. If similar actions by either editor resume, case can be re-opened.

Support:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Charles Matthews 16:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm not entirely sure what this is meant to mean. If it doesn't pass, but 1 does... well, the same affect is effected. So... James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ➥the Epopt 14:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement by block[edit]

1) Should Jguk violate the ban imposed in this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. Too much past use of the t---- word, to defend contra-policy edits, so I'm not cutting any slack on this. Charles Matthews 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ➥the Epopt 22:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Supporting, though in general agreement with Dmcdevit, because I expect enforcement on this to be done with at least some degree of intelligence, and no long ban imposed unless absolutely necessary, though the maximum may increase. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Tightening up the loopholes in the previous case's remedy is all that is required; no further action necessary at this time.[reply]
  2. Don't think this should become a year-long ban without revisiting the issue. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Unecessary. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Enforcement by block[edit]

2) Should Sortan violate the ban imposed in this decision he may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 16:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. Don't stalk, do get admins involved. Charles Matthews 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ➥the Epopt 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Supporting because I expect enforcement on this to be done with at least some degree of intelligence, and no long ban imposed unless absolutely necessary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    (Addressed to anyone voting here,) Hrm, we're voting down the topic ban (remedy #2), so what does this enforcement pertain to? Dmcdevit·t 09:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. James F. (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jayjg (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dmcdevit·t 06:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

  1. Close. Dmcdevit·t 00:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Close. Charles Matthews 13:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose in the absence of effective enforceable remedies Fred Bauder 14:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The remedy is enforceable, by the last arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Enforcement by ban. Dmcdevit·t 19:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Close. Effective remedies do exist; they devolve to the previous case. Jayjg (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. close ➥the Epopt 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Proposed_decision&oldid=1037733416"