Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

=Proposed final decision=

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia
1) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * It is true that most activities of users should contribute to building an encyclopedia Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. Seems straightforward, but it's never been a FoF by ArbCom or even in issue by ArbCom before.


 * Comment by others:

Summary blocking of trolls
2) Users who are not here to help contribute to the encyclopaedia and who are disruptive are liable to have their editing privileges restricted or taken away. There is only a low threshold of disruption or evidence that is needed to block users who are not here to make substantive improvements to Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A high threshold is more appropriate, zero tolerance is wholly inappropriate. Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. We really should have zero tolerance on this. If a user is not making significant contributions to the encyclopaedia and is disrupting Wikipedia in anyway, they should be asked to leave.


 * Comment by others:

No-wikistalking
3) It is against Civility to wikistalk.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * True enough Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk.


 * Comment by others:

Civility
4) No personal attacks


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Standard principle Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk.


 * Comment by others:

Sockpuppets
5) Decisions of ArbCom apply to the individual and all of an individual's accounts.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * And to all sockpuppets Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. That's what I was getting at, Fred:) jguk 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Standard for determination of sockpuppet
6a) Whether an account is a sockpuppet account is determined on the balance of probabilities. That is, if evidence suggests a greater than 50% likelihood of two users being the same, they should be treated as though they are the same.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * We need to be a bit more careful than that Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. See the alternative 6b. I'm not aware of the standard of proof required ever being stated anywhere before, it would be good to have something in black and white.


 * Comment by others:

Another standard for determination of sockpuppets
6b) Whether an account is a sockpuppet account is determined on whtether they have been shown to be the same beyond reasonable doubt.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Too high a standard, somewhere in between is more appropriate Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. See the alternative 6a. I'm not aware of the standard of proof required ever being stated anywhere before, it would be good to have something in black and white.


 * Comment by others:

Banning of obsessive users
7) Users who focus in a disruptive way on an issue or subject may be banned from editing with respect to that issue or subject.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Intended to apply to extension of Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2 Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Assistance in enforcing Arbitration decisions
8) Users who assist in the enforcement of Arbitration Committee remedies are appreciated by the Committee.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * However one might overdo it, that depends on the facts of the particular case. Fred Bauder 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * If I had had a full opportunity to state my case in the earlier ArbCom case, I would have demonstrated that in that instance I had been assisting in the enforcement of ArbCom decisions. Of course, you may have decided (had I been given full opportunity to present that evidence) that I had overdone it. However, I fail to see what this has to do with this case? jguk 19:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

1) User:Sortan has wikistalked User:Jguk and subjected him to personal attacks, and otherwise generally disrupted Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Sortan has assisted Wikipedia in the enforcement of Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2 Fred Bauder 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk


 * Comment by others:

2) User:Sortan (under all accounts under which he has edited) despite being a regular, active editor, has made very, very few substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * He has however been very helpful with respect to policy discussions regarding era notation and the enforcement of Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2 Fred Bauder 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk


 * Comment by others:
 * "Very helpful" is arguing a case against me (after stalking me for weeks) and pointing out my one slip up? How does this help build an encyclopaedia. Had Sortan not stalked me and caused mayhem over this issue, the earlier dispute would most likely have been resolved amicably between Humus Sapiens and myself. Sortan's presence made this impossible, jguk 19:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

3) User:Sortan has also edited under the accounts User:CDThieme, User:Tree&Leaf, User:Longboat, User:Quintusdecimus, User:Jguk., User:Uncarved Block and User:Via Egnatia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Checkuser shows no sockpuppet activity Fred Bauder 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This seems highly unlikely to me. CheckUser showed obvious sockpuppeting for all other CDThieme accounts, but none for Sortan.  Also, they don't have the same "voice", and sometimes don't agree with each other; see, for example  and  Jayjg (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. I was aware when suggesting this FoF that CheckUser did not link Sortan to another known user (other than the James-R account that has never made an edit). The point here is - do we need CheckUser to verify sockpuppet activity (despite it, in many cases, only being suggestive) - or can circumstantial evidence of sockpuppetry alone be enough? If the former, then I agree that this proposed FoF must fail, if not (and your comments above regarding the standard of proof required suggest that you don't think CheckUser evidence is necessary) then I submit the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming (I should add that both CDThieme and Sortan appear to have disappeared since the last week of December, and ask whether this is a coincidence too), jguk 19:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Sortan's helpful assistance
4) Sortan has assisted Wikipedia in the enforcement of Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think to praise someone for wikistalking someone, and then, when they slip up (as has happened many a time to many a good editor), praising that wikistalker for bringing the error to general attention is going too far, jguk 20:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Continued agitation by Jguk regarding era notation
5) Jguk has continued his advocacy regarding era notation with POV edits and edit warring at Anno Domini, see Talk:Anno_Domini.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Many unsourced statements exist in Wikipedia articles, while they are subject to removal in good faith it is gaming of the wiki process to do so in the context of point of view editing done in bad faith. Fred Bauder 17:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * My concerns about verifiability are well known, and are expressed on many, many pages. Indeed, my only real concerns on this subject are Accessibility of pages generally, and Verifiability of the Anno Domini and Common Era pages. That's all I've ever argued on the point (it is others who have brought other matters into the dispute, which I have more or less left behind - indeed I have never really responded to GTBacchus's requests to get actively involved in his project to try to resolve the disputes, making just the occasional, odd comment, as I really want to put this issue firmly in the past. If you are saying that it is wrong to ask for a reference to support information you disagree with (from an opinion point of view), come out and say it. Such an approach would have seen David Gerard, for instance, banned a long time ago from editing scientology articles as he has a clear anti-scientology agenda and his aim to get clear well-referenced articles on the subject is intended to encourage people to take an anti-scientology viewpoint. My point here is that it is always reasonable to ask for references. It is always reasonable to ask for statements in articles to be precise. What it is not ok to do is to ignore references when they are proposed. All I have asked to happen on the Anno Domini and Common Era articles is that things are referenced and accurate. I certainly expect information I wish to add to be subject to the same scrutiny (it should be). Indeed, the best way to deal with controversial articles is to reference everything up, jguk 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Jguk continues to change notation
3) Jguk has continued, especially in instances not covered by the plain language of the prior remedy to change era notation and.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Never lets it go Fred Bauder 15:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Fred, since I was made aware of the ArbCom decision on the previous case I have made one mistake - which as you note Sortan immediately brought onto AN/I and for which I was blocked for four days (another admin apparently reduced this to one day, but I didn't become aware of that until I returned four days later). The citations you give above are of edits fully in compliance with the ruling that I was not to change "BCE" to "BC" or "CE" to "AD". The first example contains shows clearly that there is no instance of "BCE" or "CE" in the article before my edit, so I how can I be breaking the ruling. In the second example, the edit I made inserted no reference to "AD" or "BC", so likewise is not within the ruling. You have 3 diffs you are arguing against me, for which, in total I have been blocked for 4 days and 4 hours. It's not a lot, and I have served my time. It's 13 January now, jguk 19:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Focus of Sortan on era notation
4} From his initial edits Sortan has focused on era notation (Note awkward change from "100,000 years ago" to "100,000 BCE"),  and Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Dogged obsession combined with stalking Fred Bauder 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Sortan has stalked Jguk
5) Sortan has stalked Jguk, editing numerous articles shortly after Jguk, tendentiously changing era notation, see Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan/Evidence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Dogged obsession combined with stalking Fred Bauder 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not every edit is unhelpful, see, but the focus remains struggle with Jguk. Fred Bauder 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * There have, however, been no substantive edits by Sortan to improve the encyclopaedia. There's no real contribution Sortan's made that can be said "that was really worth having him around", jguk 20:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

1) User:Sortan is hard-banned from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * A sockpuppet check shows only that he has edited from one account which is a satellite service while

CDThieme edits from one account on a cable service. It seems unlikely anyone would use two such services or be disciplined enough over a period of days to always use one account with one user name. Fred Bauder 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Another reason not to hard ban him is that simply obsessing over era formats is not sufficient grounds for a general ban. Fred Bauder 16:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk. We really should have zero tolerance on this. If a user is not making significant contributions to the encyclopaedia and is disrupting Wikipedia in anyway, they should be asked to leave. Sortan has caused significant disruption. If ArbCom agree that Sortan and CDThieme are one and the same, this would then automatically apply to CDThieme, who under that account has made very, very few substantive edits, but caused a lot of disruption.
 * Fred, it is causing disruption and not making substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia that is deserving of a hard ban. Had Sortan made a significant substantive edits, I would not suggest a hard ban. But he hasn't. The question is, what is Sortan bringing to the party? What are the up sides compared to the down sides. The up sides are negligible, the down sides you agree are there. If the up sides are negligible, why keep him? (Please bear in mind that there are other disputes following where admins have blocked and then unblocked users who have contributed little or nothing to the encyclopaedia, yet cause disruptioon - the case of User:Mistress Selina Kyle may be on its way (read the talk page, WP:AN and WP:AN/I if you don't know what I'm referring to). A guide as to what ArbCom sees that the general principle is for users causing disruption but giving some benefit to the encyclopaedia (but negligible in comparison to the disruption they have caused) would be useful to the whole community, jguk 20:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the CheckUser evidence, it is, none the less, possible. Many people have both cable and satellite. It does not mean other evidence should be ignored, jguk 20:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) Any administrator may ban Sortan and all accounts under which Sortan is editing. If Sortan returns, any edits made by that account may be summarily reverted by any editor.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed by jguk.


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: