Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2/Proposed decision

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 are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority.

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
 * For all items:

Motions and requests by the parties
Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions
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.

Temporary injunction Jguk
1)

Based on continued editing solely for the purpose of removing BCE/CE notation from articles (see ), jguk is prohibited from changing or removing any BCE/CE notation from any article, or making any edit intended to achieve that result, pending resolution of this matter.


 * Support:
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As an interim measure, absolutely. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 01:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Proposed final decision=

Obsessional point of view
1) In certain cases a Wikipedia editor will tendentiously focus their attention in an obsessive way. Such users may be banned from editing in the affected area.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Manual of Style (Eras)
2) Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Generally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE . See Manual of Style (dates and numbers).


 * Support:
 * &rarr;Raul654 - added a slight wording change: normally -> generally &rarr;Raul654 00:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC) The phrasing of this implies that the 'real' name is "Common Era", something which is both utterly untrue and highly misleading and offensive.
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC) We should find what the MoS says, rather than hold that what the MoS says is correct.
 * (Changing to oppose on the basis of James and Kelly's arguments.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Guideline, not a principle Fred Bauder 17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Since we have an FOF pertaining to this now, I believe this is no longer necessary. &rarr;Raul654 02:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Neutral wording
2.1) Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, articles must be consistent. Normally, plain numbers should be used for years beyond the era change-over; when events span the change-over, AD and BC, or CE and BCE, should be used in conjunction with the year number for as appropriate. For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE . See Manual of Style (dates and numbers).


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC) It's not fantastic, but...


 * Oppose:
 * The alternative wording is a quotation of the guideline. Fred Bauder 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Guideline, not a principle Fred Bauder 17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ... and yet. Written-down policy is always merely an imperfect rendition of the true meaning. In this case, I find the written form significantly imperfect. Stating it as a principle - rather than as a finding of fact that that is what the MoS said at the time - would be a mistake. It is inappropriate for us to pass as something considerably more concrete than most Wikipedia policy that which is so poorly phrased. James F. (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For the same reason as above: we should not subvert the consensus development of style guidelines by approving a particular formulation of a style guideline. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Manual of Style
2.2) The Manual of Style is a set of guidelines governing appropriate editing on Wikipedia. Editors are expected to follow the Manual of Style, although it is not policy and editors may deviate from it with good reason.


 * Support:
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 17:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style
3) A guideline such as Manual of Style (dates and numbers) can be changed by the Wikipedia community, see how policies are decided. This policy provides for consensus decision-making by those users who are familiar with the matter.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit-warring considered harmful
4) Regardless of whether editors break the three revert rule, edit-warring is considered detrimental to Wikipedia, on account of both the social disruption it causes and the stalling effect it has on the improvement of the article in question. Editors should use the dispute resolution process to solve the issue instead.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * Finding implies that other dispute resolution processes had been tried and were working. In fact, they had been tried (including a previous RfAR) and failed, which allowed jguk to continue with impunity. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's campaign
1) Jguk has changed the era notation on hundreds of articles which he does not usually edit to reflect his preferred usage BC AD, see for example his edits to Khazars:, ,.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Note change to "hundreds".
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I have no doubt on "hundreds".


 * Oppose:
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I would rather "well over 1000" was not left in. I haven't personally enumerated these to be in excess of 1200, which is what is being asked of me in supporting this, and I have to doubt if any of the rest of us have, either. If you really want to dig the knife in, JayJG, say "in a significant number of articles".
 * I have no intention of "dig[ging] the knife in"; rather, the previous wording significantly understated the severity of the situation. If jguk had just changed "a number" of articles, we wouldn't be here.  Regarding the exact number, the evidence provided, particularly by MPerel and Sortan, has been exhaustive and explicitly enumerated, and it's clear it was well over a thousand. Nevertheless, I've now changed it to "hundreds" - is that ok? Jayjg (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the citing of a particular number that I dislike. I cannot in all conscience vouch that there really are many hundreds of examples, because I have not enumerated them (my trusting the editors who have provided this information does not mean that I should irresponsibly take their evidence without substantial effort on my part to verify it). James F. (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Abstain:

Reaction of regular editors
2) The regular editors of articles which Jguk has visited for the purpose of correcting the era format have objected to his efforts, see for example Talk:Khazars.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Edit-warring
3) All the parties in the dispute (jguk, Sortan, Humus sapiens) have engaged in edit-warring over date styles.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:
 * I'm concerned this creates a false impression of equivalence. In particular, Humus Sapiens battled with jguk over a small number articles which Humus was already editing for other reasons.  jguk warred with many different individuals over large numbers of articles which he had edited solely for the purpose of date style conversion. Jayjg (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What policy says
4) On the matter of usage of years, the Manual of Style currently says:
 * "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras."


 * Support:
 * James F. (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 17:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 20:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 16:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

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.

Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD
1) Jguk is indefinitely prohibited from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article, for any reason.


 * Support:
 * Fred Bauder 15:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - I made a slight wording tweak, to avoid gaming.
 * If there is truly consensus for a date style change, someone else can do it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

Enforcement by ban
1) Jguk may be briefly banned, up to a week in the case of repeated offenses, should he attempt to change the era notation in any article.


 * Support:
 * &rarr;Raul654 19:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder 20:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * James F. (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * &#10149;the Epopt 00:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:

=Discussion by Arbitrators=

Motion to close
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.


 * Everything has passed. &rarr;Raul654 06:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jayjg (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose closing until the issue of our holding that the MoS is correct (Principle 2 supra) about date styles is dealt with. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC) OK to close now. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)