Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2/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, 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:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * I think this applies Fred Bauder 00:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * This definitely applies here. No editor except Jguk has engaged in editing era styles on such a global grand-scale basis.  For the first arbitration case I documented Jguk’s 1000+ era-related edits to his preferred style on 700 articles, as well as the 300 era edits he continued to make as an anon after he "left".  Because he interpreted the first arbcom decision as vindicating his behavior, he has obsessively continued trying to enforce his preferred style at a meta level.  A global approach to the era issue proved unattainable after all various proposals to convert wiki-wide to one or the other era style failed.  Therefore, both styles remain acceptable and nothing is in place restricting regular editors of a particular article to decide on the appropriate style for that article.  Most other editors involved with this case have only demonstrated interest in era styles on the handful of articles in areas in which they normally edit, which is why this cycle with Jguk has and will continue to keep arising as new previously uninvolved editors continue to encounter Jguk’s obsessive meta-level interference in articles he has no interest in other than to enforce his preferred era style. -- M P er el ( talk 02:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Community censure of Jguk's obsessional POV -- Editors since the last arbitration case who have noted Jguk's continued obsessive habit and expressed disapproval/warnings to Jguk include the following: Ambi, Doc glasgow, Taxman, SlimVirgin, Jonathunder, squell, fvw, Kaldari, Jdavidb, Palmiro, Sortan, Sasquatch, Jayjg, Briangotts, Zora, Sunray, Humus sapiens, Mjchonoles, MPerel, CDThieme, Garzo -- M P er el ( talk 20:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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. 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 Manual of Style (dates and numbers)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * The primary problem in this dispute seems to have been the various parties' edit-warring and lack of communication. [[Sam Korn ]] 18:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Use of role accounts
5) The use of role accounts is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. Using multiple accounts simultaneously in order to evade Wikipedia policy is a bannable offence.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * What is a role account? Fred Bauder 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Role account. [[Sam Korn ]] 21:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Articles to be decided by consensus
6) Article contents including any optional styles should be decided by consensus on the corresponding talk page by the article's editors, in accordance with our policies (such as WP:NPOV), and taking into consideration our guidelines (such as the manual of style). Barring consensus, other methods such as the first contributor rule can be used.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Should be obvious... however others seem to feel that a "No Change" rule should be imposed against consensus. Sortan 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Jguk's campaign
1) Jguk has changed the era notation on a number of articles which he does not usually edit to reflect his preferred usage BC AD, see for example his edits to Khazars: Removing CE without comment, reverted by Sortan as a "troll/vandal" he restores with the comment "I'm told the MOS mandates this copyedit - and Sortan, please quit with the personal attacks"; rolled back by Jdavidb ; again he edits to conform to his preferred usage  with the comment "rv - as noted before, WP:MOS apparently mandates this change, which helps improve the readability of the article too"; Briangotts reverts  with the comment "rv - restore deletions of fact; also, MOS does not mandate your arbitrary dating system. Leave it be.". At which point Jguk apparently gives up.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Typical; trying to impose his preferred usage on an article he has no particular interest in editing except to insert his preferred style of era notation Fred Bauder 18:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is some ground for believing he is merely making a good faith mistake in that he says that someone told him that the Manual of style mandates the change. Fred Bauder 18:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Jguk edit warred at the WP:MOS in order to introduce this change (brought about without consensus on the talk page):, which would have mandated removal of all era notations for articles discussing events wholly with the past 2,000 years. The change also would have introduced Jguk's personal bias against BCE notation into the MOS. He was reverted by User:Gene Nygaard with the comment revert changes called simplification of language . He edit warred in an attempt to force through his changes , but was again reverted, now by User:Jonathunder . Jguk again attempts to enact his changes, with different wording , and is reverted yet again, this time by User:CDThieme . He performs another revert , and is this time reverted by me . He responds by calling me a "trolling account" and performs yet another reversion . I revert again and am rollbacked by User:Mel Etitis , who is himself reverted by User:Sunray . Jguk, at this point seems to give up. In total he has performed four reversions (plus his initial edit), and his changes are reverted by five different editors. One of the objections I raised to Jguk's changes was that he would use this change as an excuse to edit war and attempt to remove CE notation from articles , which seems to be what he was attempting to do at the Khazars article. The complete discussion in now archived. I think the above illustrates that Jguk is well aware of what the MOS states, and cannot claim that he made a good faith edit, or that he was misinformed of what the MOS states. Sortan 01:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Reaction of regular editors
3) 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 [].


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * While it may be true that I may have technically edit-warred, I object to being labeled with the same brush as jguk. I have only been reverting Jguk, who's edits are not good faith attempts to improve the article, but rather attempts to enforce his preferred style. I have never reverted a regular contributor to an article, nor edit-warred with anyone else. Jguk on the other hand, seems to take some sort of pleasure from edit-warring with regular article contributors, and forcing them to adopt his preferred style. This is like saying RC patrollers who revert persistent vandals are edit-warring with them. Sortan 20:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. This proposal is to deal with everyone.  There would be other proposals to deal with jguk himself, whose behaviour is of a different scale and type.  You have certainly not come out of this smelling of roses.  You editwarred.  You cannot deny that.  Edit-warring is not good, no matter what the situation.  Therefore, in relation to edit-warring alone, you are equally as at fault as jguk.  Vandalism is always specifically excluded from edit-warring policies anyway.   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't deny that I editwarred (only) with Jguk. I also reported him at WP:ANI four times and everybody agreed that Jguk should stop changing date styles and edit warring. Would you suggest that Jguk just be left alone to continue changing date styles and everybody just sit back? Sortan 23:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute resolution process is provided for this reason precisely. I note (without casting aspersions on either side) that jguk has said almost identical reasoning to me justifying his reverting you.  However justified you feel, edit-warring is wrong.   [[Sam Korn ]] 11:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, lets see... jguk has been to arbitration two times in ~5 months, been reported to WP:ANI four times in ~5 months (with everyone responding asking him to stop). If that's not using the dispute resolution process then I don't know what else to do. I note that despite extensive evidence provided by many people of Jguk's revert warring during the last arbitration he received no sanctions, and was allowed to continue. Also, I haven't been the only one reverting Jguk, and he has clearly been a disruptive user reverted by many people, and I don't consider cleaning up after a troublesome user to be detrimental. Have you actually taken a look at the evidence or are you relying solely on Jguk's word? Perhaps you could look at Fu Hsi and explain how there is any sort of parity between me and Jguk. Sortan 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This ties in with my proposed principle 4 above.  [[Sam Korn ]] 18:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sortan as a role account
5) is an account created by another Wikipedian for the purpose of edit-warring over era notation.  It is not known which Wikipedian created the account.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Sortan will probably not be a problem once Jguk's crusade is stopped. Fred Bauder 14:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that to condone vigilante justice? Just that jguk provoked the problem doesn't exonerate Sortan from his role in the conflict.   [[Sam Korn ]] 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not vigilantism anymore than RC patrollers reverting trolls and vandals is vigilantism. Sortan 16:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * RC patrollers only revert vandals. Vandals are different to those pushing POVs or having content disputes, which is the case here.   [[Sam Korn ]] 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I guess this is where we differ. Looking at Jguk's history I don't see how his date style changes are actual "content disputes", instead of trolling (edits which are know to be disruptive, and intended to provoke a response). Sortan 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, reverting trolls still counts under the 3RR. I was labelling both you and jguk as engaging in a content dispute (don't deny this: you're disputing over the content of an article).  We have a dispute resolution process for this.   [[Sam Korn ]] 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see my above response to FOF 4. To reiterate, the dispute resolution process has been tried. Jguk has so far had four arbitration requests placed regarding his behavior (one over the serial comma, one over styles for royalty, and two over date styles), and has failed to moderate his actions. They all deal with the exact same pattern of revert warring over his preferred style. He's been reported four times at WP:ANI] with everyone asking him to please stop. The (voluntary) dispute resolution process only works when parties are amenable to reason and agree to abide by consensus. Jguk has repeatedly ignored the advice of other, and continued edit-warring, even with the people who wrote the articles, which I hope you can agree is exponentially more damaging and disruptive than me reverting him. Do you honestly think that anything else that I tried would have stopped Jguk's campaign? Sortan 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition, Jguk is the only one to have continued edit-warring even during this arbitration. I hope this goes to show how amenable he is to the "dispute resolution process". Sortan 18:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I find continued edit-warring especially troubling. He should know better. Remember this: I am not exonerating jguk.  I feel he is most to blame.  I am, however, bringing you to task for your actions as well.  There is more to dispute resolution than ANI.  Indeed, ANI is positively not part of dispute resolution.  Dispute resolution is talking to each other, third opinion-gathering, requests for comment, mediation, and arbitration.  Staging your own vigilante action is not the Wikipedia way.  Indeed, several editors were cautioned recently by the ArbCom for doing precisely that.  [[Sam Korn ]] 19:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I am aware that ANI is not a part of the formal dispute resolution process, but it is a quick way to get outside opinion from third parties. The opinions were uniform in asking jguk to stop, and he ignored them (as he did the last arbitration, which he took as vindication of his actions). Do you think an RFC or third opinion would have had any other results? As for talking to each other, when not lecturing to me he refused to talk to a "sockpuppet" of an "admin".
 * Reverting his edits was the only other option left, and it was needed because otherwise, jguk would claim that the articles had been "stable" at his version. Most of his date style conversions from last year have remained as others just gave up reverting him, and it would be far more disruptive to restore the original style now. Or do you think that it would be appropriate to now restore the thousands of articles that hes modified to their original style? Sortan 18:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you truly feel that jguk is the most to blame, why would you suggest that all parties be blocked for equal amounts of time? Shouldn't it be more like one day for me and a month for jguk? Sortan 18:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * jguk has other sanctions placed against him to acknowledge this fact. In answer to your other question, I don't think a change should be made unless there's a really really good reason.  A really really good reason does not mean "someone just changed it and I disagree with them."  This is a wiki, right?  People are allowed to change things.  Reverting, however, shouldn't happen unless there is that really really good reason.   [[Sam Korn ]] 14:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Can you please point to the statement by David Gerard please? This is ridiculous, and basically boils down to personally attacking people you disagree with. Can you prove that you, Sam Korn are not a sockpuppet of Jguk? Sortan 23:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It will surprise you to know that I agree with you. As to the note from David, I believe it was on ANI a couple of months back.  I do not have the time now to check.  I have contacted David to ask him.  I cannot believe, by the way, that someone inexperienced in Wikipedia can possibly have his first edit summary on his first edit as "wikify".  It is most certainly not my intention to attack you; I aim solely to attempt to put down sensible proposals for ArbCom members to consider.  I apologise if I am wrong, but I am not convinced I am.   [[Sam Korn ]] 23:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is quite possible for people to use and edit here long before getting a username.... I've never claimed I was inexperienced with Wikipedia, having used it for quite a while. I would say WP:AGF, but I wouldn't want to be accused of knowing too much again. This might be interesting (it is slightly troubling that David Gerard would be willing to entertain requests from people like Jguk despite what it says on his user and talk page, but if it would help to convince Jguk so be it) Actually it might be useful if he could confirm that the anon ip which showed up after Jguk claimed to "leave" was indeed Jguk   , and you could perhaps be kind enough to come up with proposals to deal with that situation. Sortan 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The anon ips 195.40.200.xxx used to make those era edits were confirmed to be Jguk when he signed edits here; and he doesn't deny it. Btw Sortan, do you use another registered WP account? I don't recall whether you've stated you do or do not. If so, and you prefer to protect your identity, you might consider at least revealing it to the arbitrators, or pick one to vouch for you, and they can check whether multiple accounts have been used to break policy (double voting, or using several identities on the same articles or with the same users).  I think multiple accounts are discouraged but not illegal, but it would help your case if you can demonstrate you didn't abuse them this way.  -- M P er el ( talk 01:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I don't have any other accounts (as confirmed by David Gerard twice, now). Perhaps [[Sam Korn ]] could come up with a remedy to deal with Jguk's abusive use of anon ips now... Sortan 15:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. jguk has not abused sock-puppets in any way, as far as I can see. All the evidence I have seen hints (not proves) that you have another account. Remember that this was written based on my memory of those two edits of David's from two months ago. I am perfectly willing to concede that there may have been no improprietry from your side. I also hope you can see why I can believe there might be. [[Sam Korn ]] 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So:
 * Claiming to "leave" to elicit sympathy
 * Creating a sockpuppet to come back under to continue to edit
 * Then logging out and making date style changes to over 300 articles using an anonymous ip so the edits can't be traced back to you
 * Is perfectly acceptable behavior? Sortan 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but I don't consider it deceptive, as he has never denied using these accounts since. I call it foolish and insensitive, but not deceptive or illegal.   [[Sam Korn ]] 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think its pretty deceptive (why else would you deliberately edit under an anon ip, and create a sockpuppet). Its not like it was a mistake, as Jguk continued to let the Arbiters think during the last Arbitration that the anon ip was not him. Sortan 18:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is based on my understanding of a statement by David Gerard. I am happy to be corrected if I got the wrong end of the stick.   [[Sam Korn ]] 21:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * IIRC, I said it looked remarkably like one to me from the edit pattern. Looking now, I can tell you that not only is there no match between Sortan and Jguk, they're on different continents. And both have a consistent pattern of IP usage, and Sortan has no other usernames coming up. (Jguk has some, but those look like shared organisational proxies.) - David Gerard 11:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that you looked and saw that Sortan had registered with two usernames quickly. Clearly I misunderstood.  My most sincere apologies to Sortan for this misunderstanding.   [[Sam Korn ]] 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, maybe I didn't. I have just found the two edits by David Gerard that confirm what I thought he had said:  and .  The edit pattern also confirms my suspicions.   [[Sam Korn ]] 14:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, even if I'm James R (which I'm not), how is this a violation of policy? There is only so much I can do to demonstrate my innocence, and if you want to ignore all evidence, and prefer instead to view this as some sort of conspiracy and that I'm actually some sort of powerful admin, that's your business. Sortan 16:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding of what David said was that these accounts (Sortan & James R) had been created at the same time, and that he thought they were created by the same user for the purpose of edit warring. I may have misenterpreted these comments, and there may be too little evidence anyway. In either of these cases, I apologise. Nevertheless, I still feel it is important to debate this issue.  [[Sam Korn ]] 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem quite predisposed to believe the worst of me even with no evidence, yet quit happy to excuse Jguk's behavior even with extensive evidence. Sortan 16:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary. I fully support the statements the ArbCom has already made against jguk, and I feel his edit-warring over date styles must stop.  I don't feel the ArbCom has yet acknowledged your part in this matter; hence my points here.  In addition, I thought the evidence said something other than it did.  For the third time, I offer my apologies for this misunderstanding.  [[Sam Korn ]] 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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:

Jguk banned from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD
1) Jguk is banned for one year indefinitely from changing BCE to BC or CE to AD in any article.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * There are thousands of editors on Wikipedia; jguk can readily ask someone else to change an article if the article is inconsistent. We've wasted enough time on this already.  Kelly Martin (talk) 00:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason he cannot change notation in articles he ordinarily edits. Also no reason he would not simply resume his crusade after a year. Fred Bauder 13:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Articles he ordinarily edits" makes the ban too difficult to enforce (it forces administrators to guess whether the article was one of his "ordinarily edited articles"). I have no intention of giving him any weasel room to work with, since we gave it to him last time and he ran with it.  And the only reason for the time period of one year is our constitutional limitation on bans. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We can do a partial ban like this indefinitely Fred Bauder 17:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Changed to indefinite, then. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment by parties:
 * Is jguk to be allowed to continue just removing CE notation from articles (as well as the words Common Era from articles)? What about creating alternate templates (like he did recently) to circumvent the prohibition from changing date styles? Sortan 20:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This would be ineffective not only for the reasons Kelly listed above but this would likely lead to sockpuppetry and gang wars to get around the ban. Jtkiefer  T - 00:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I like this - I don't think it would be ineffective, and if anyone tries to sockpuppet around a ban, we just do what we always do - play whack-a-mole and extend the ban. Ambi 02:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Question, is it really enforceable though since this would mean enforcing not on a paltry 3 or 4 articles in a single category, this would mean enforcing it on a couple thousand independent articles. Also, in the case of WoW and a few others it would be whack a troll not whack a mole :). Jtkiefer  T - 01:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing restrictions with respect to BC-AD
2) Jguk is banned indefinitely from changing era notation in articles which he does not regularly edit.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Campaigns with respect to an optional style need to stop. If Jguk regularly edits an article, he can discuss this with other editors and together the editors can come to a consensus as to which notation is appropriate for that article. Attempts to change notation in articles he does not usually edit are much more disruptive as it represents the intrusion of an outside Crusader with an agenda.


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Revert warring over era notation
3) Jguk is prohibited from engaging in revert wars regarding era notation. A ban of one week for each revert of era notation shall be imposed to run consecutively.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Intended to be a prohibitively expensive penalty. Fred Bauder 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Parties censured for edit-warring
4) jguk, Sortan and Humus sapiens are censured for edit-warring and are strongly reminded to follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution process in future. They are therefore each banned for one week.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Tying in with proposed Principle 4 and proposed FoF 4. [[Sam Korn ]] 21:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have extended this proposal to a week's ban each, rather than just censuring. This should make more of an impression.   [[Sam Korn ]] 14:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sortan banned indefinitely
5) As a role account created for the purpose of edit-warring, Sortan is banned indefinitely from Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * If he has a legal account, I don't see why he should continue to use this one. [[Sam Korn ]] 21:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Guidelines for enforcement
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 without obtaining consensus among the other regular editors of the article. As a rough guide, in order for an article to be one he regularly edits he should have made at least 10 edits prior to any edit changing era notation. Reversion of an edit Jguk has made changing era notation by any other editor who has made at least 10 edits to the article shall constitute proof for purposes of enforcement that consensus regarding era notation was not obtained.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * 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: