Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sortan - Wikipedia

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop and voting on proposed decisions at /Proposed decision.

This is a request that ArbCom rules (1) that accounts that are not being used to help improve the encyclopaedia can be banned on request to ArbCom; and (2) that User:Sortan is one such user and should be blocked.

The biggest cause of major contributors leaving Wikipedia, aside from personal circumstances, is accounts that make very little or no positive contribution to the encyclopaedia, but who are content to argue, harass, harangue and/or make occasional personal attacks. Often they attach themselves to one or two users. This makes it difficult to remove them - they are not clear vandals or widespread trolls (and so do not qualify for automatic bans), however, they are trouble and bring no benefits to the encyclopaedia. They prevent editors with long edit histories that show a long record from making productive edits. They often tend to be litigious, demanding of their “rights” - which itself creates a problem, especially as our writers are here because they wish to write, not because they wish to defend 200+ of their edits in a RfC or ArbCom case. To my mind, it should be clearly stated that where ArbCom finds an account is not here in order to better the encyclopaedia, then it should be blocked.

I invite ArbCom to do this in the case of Sortan (talk · contribs). This account’s contribution history constitutes evidence demonstrating that this user has made no real contributions of note, but has been involved in many disruptive disputes is in the edit history. I think it is so self-evident that if ArbCom members were to open 10 or 12 of this accounts edits at random, and consider the purposes of those edits, they will see what I am referring to. The underlying principle is Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (which, although semi-humorous refers to our fundamental purposes. I urge ArbCom to take this case to determine (1) that accounts that are not being used to help improve the encyclopaedia can be blocked on request to ArbCom; and (2) that User:Sortan is one such user and should be blocked.

I would agree that the cause of contributors leaving Wikipedia is persistent trolling from POV pushers, who do nothing but edit war to enforce their particular POVs. Such is the case with . He has made no significant contributions to history articles, yet has engaged in hundreds of edit wars, and thousands of reversions with editors who do contribute. One only has to look at the histories of such articles such as where jguk has engaged in revert wars spanning months against the article creator PHG over date styles. A similar situation occurs at where jguk revert wars with article creator Kwamikagami. This pattern is repeated over hundreds of articles where the contributors commit the cardinal sin of disagreeing with jguk over his preferred styles.

Dates are not the only matter with which jguk revert wars over, but other stylistic differences, including U.S. vs US, styles for royalty, and spelling styles (British vs American spelling).

Jguk is apparently claiming that my reverting him here [] (where he changes start of the Common Era to 1 BC, and which is against his arbitration case and for which he received a block (see )), constitutes "harassment" and "stalking".

I too would urge acceptance so that Jguk's disruptive history of edit warring over styles can receive greater scrutiny.

Jguk's summary is without diffs or links of evidence. He claims I'm litigious, yet I've never started an RFAr (I added myself to Jguk 2, which was started by someone else). Jguk, on the other hand, has been involved in numerous RfArs and RFCs, even when he doesn't edit the subject matter concerned (eg. Instantnood 2). I would please ask for evidence where I've been litigious, or where I've hindered, in any way, Jguk infrequent constructive edits.

Perhaps David Gerard could enlighten me how my "trolling" jguk caused him to make these edits: , ?

Perhaps David Gerard could also enlighten me how he "missed" jguk's edits as an anon during his first arbcom case?

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

1) The remedy at 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.

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

Place here the basis of any action taken under the provision of any remedy under Wikipedia:Probation imposed in this matter. Include a link to a statement of all administrators supporting the action taken.