→Obsessional point of view: definitely applies |
|||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
:Comment by others: |
: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. --[[User:MPerel|<font color="#330000">M</font><font color="#334400">P</font><font color="#338800">er</font><font color="#33cc00">el </font>]]<sup><small>( [[user_talk:MPerel|<font color="#11bb00">talk</font>]] | [[Special:contributions/MPerel|<font color="3399FF">contrib</font>]])</small></sup> 02:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:# |
|||
===Manual of Style (Eras)=== |
===Manual of Style (Eras)=== |
Revision as of 02:16, 23 October 2005
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.
Motions and requests by the parties
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed final decision
Proposed principles
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. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 02:16, 23 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Changing a guideline such as Manual of Style
3. A guideline such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras 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:
Proposed findings of fact
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 [1] with the comment "I'm told the MOS mandates this copyedit - and Sortan, please quit with the personal attacks"; rolled back by Jdavidb [2]; again he edits to conform to his preferred usage [3] with the comment "rv - as noted before, WP:MOS apparently mandates this change, which helps improve the readability of the article too"; Briangotts reverts [4] 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 Wikipedia: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): [5], 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 [6]. He edit warred in an attempt to force through his changes [7], but was again reverted, now by User:Jonathunder [8]. Jguk again attempts to enact his changes, with different wording [9], and is reverted yet again, this time by User:CDThieme [10]. He performs another revert [11], and is this time reverted by me [12]. He responds by calling me a "trolling account" and performs yet another reversion [13]. I revert again [14] and am rollbacked by User:Mel Etitis [15], who is himself reverted by User:Sunray [16]. 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 [17], 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 [[18]].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- 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:
Proposed enforcement
Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
- 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: