Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision

all proposed

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, 1 Arbitrator is recused and 5 are inactive, so 4 votes are a majority.

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Jguk prohibited from editing with respect to era

1) User:Jguk is prohibited from modifying dates which use the common era notation for the duration of this proceeding. This is based on aggressive reverting which continues, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SouthernComfort

Support:

1. Fred Bauder
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 03:22, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC) - replacing grunt so he can remove self from case

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Style guide

1) Wikipedia has established a Wikipedia:Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see [1]. The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article." [2].

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 12:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality^talk 03:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 18:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
6. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Optional styles

2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 15:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 12:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality^talk 03:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 18:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
6. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Courtesy

3) Courtesy between Wikipedia editors is important, especially with respect to matters which are in dispute.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Ambi 12:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Neutrality^talk 03:35, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. →Raul654 18:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
6. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert wars considered harmful

4) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 14:26, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 18:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
4. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
6. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue

5) At times the proper implementation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these cases, no attempts to dictate the proper solution, whether coming from the Arbitration Committee or from a mechanism such as a poll, will be helpful. All that can be done is to insist that the participants in the dispute remain civil and respectful.

Support:

1. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 19:42, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. sannse (talk) 20:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 22:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

BCE-CE Debate

1) User: Slrubenstein both on the WikiEN-l mailing list and on Wikipedia raised the question of whether the use of AD and BC rather than CE and BCE in general articles violated NPOV, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. An extended discussion was followed by a vote which was evenly divided leaving the existing policy, both styles are acceptable, unchanged. See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision (proposed revision to policy is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/proposed_revision#Eras); and Common Era and its external links. There is a proposed vote at Wikipedia:Eras with an extended discussion at Wikipedia talk:Eras

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:26, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:36, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Why abstain on this one? It seems to me to be fairly fundamental. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Reconsidered and decided to approve. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Jongarrettuk

2) User:Jguk formerly edited under the user name User:Jongarrettuk.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:32, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Indeed it is. Ambi 03:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:36, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
5. Concur with Grunt. →Raul654 17:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
6. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's preference

3) User:Jguk has a preference for the style BC - AD and has in a number of instances, where inconsistent use existed, changed BCE to BC and CE to AD, see for example Silk Road where before his edit, both styles were used. See Wikipedia_talk:Eras#Jguk.27s_view_-_stated_in_full_for_the_first_time

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 16:48, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 08:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Extent of activity

3.1) Jguk/Jongarrettuk's era-related edits are extensive, see User:MPerel/Jguk's era-related edits.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:41, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort's preference

4) User:SouthernComfort describes himself as a "an American of Persian Khuzestani descent, and have visited my ancestral homeland many times over the years, with a deep and passionate love of Iranian history." his preference, at least for articles related to Persia, is for the usage BCE - CE. See User_talk:Jguk/Archive6#BC.2FAD_vs_BCE.2FCE.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:07, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes to AD - BC by Jguk

5) In a number of instances, involving articles relating to Persia which SouthernComfort has edited, Jguk has repeatedly changed the style from BCE to BC for reasons which have no basis in Wikipedia policy, "this shouldn't have changed in the first place - our international readership must come first", "SC, please think of the reader", "slrubenstein's proposal failed - that means it should not be implemented", "there was no need to change this - and every reason not to if you want people to understand what you mean", "SC, you shouldn't change this, it's not reader-friendly", "rv - our readers are more important than SC's politicking" and "no need to risk confusing people".

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 22:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. As far as I can see, Jguk was simply reverting changes made against policy by SouthernComfort. While he would have no business systematically changing dating systems otherwise, regardless of his views, I don't see that he's done anything wrong here. Ambi 12:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) This makes out he's the only one.
2. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Repeated reversions by Jguk

5.1) Jguk has repeatedly reverted giving as the reason his assertion that common era notation is an inferior notation which is not understandable or difficult for Wikipedia readers, an assertion not supported by the Wikipedia Manual of Style "SC, please think of the reader", "slrubenstein's proposal failed - that means it should not be implemented", "there was no need to change this - and every reason not to if you want people to understand what you mean", "SC, you shouldn't change this, it's not reader-friendly", "rv - our readers are more important than SC's politicking" and

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 22:01, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's contentions regarding Slrubenstein

5.2) User:Jguk maintains that User:Slrubenstein, having failed with respect to the vote regarding BCE - CE as the approved NPOV notation, has continued to struggle to unilaterally impose his viewpoint and to that end has egged on other users such as User:SouthernComfort, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_jguk. However checking the edits cited by Jguk it seems that he only reassured SouthernComfort that the existing Manual of Style remained in effect, User_talk:SouthernComfort#Reply.2C_BCE.2FCE, giving him the advice, "do not let Jguk bully you."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 17:51, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:#David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I've never seen the purpose of voting on what each party thinks is happening. Generally, it's pretty obvious. Ambi 03:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) Ditto Ambi. We're not psychic.
4. →Raul654 19:48, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's changes to the Parthia article

5.3) User:Jguk has repeatedly changed the era notation in the article Parthia giving as justification reasons which have no basis in Wikipedia policy "please think of our readers - we have a worldwide audience from lots of different backgrounds, not just a US academic one", "rv - not true - see, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parthia&oldid=12520828", "consistency - and restore original approach", "rv to Amir85", "consistency (and best to think of the reader and our worldwide audience)" and "rv unilateral change - this article should never have moved to an unusual notation in the first instance - if you want WP to change so its audience is US academics rather than everyone, propose it". The cited diff is to an earlier version which used both notations. Invited to discuss his edits on the talk page by Variable, Jguk fails to do so, Talk:Parthia, but continues reverting as late as June 11, 2005, still without a reason which has a basis in Wikipedia policies "restore standard usage".

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 18:48, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 19:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of "CE" and "BCE"

6) "CE" or Common Era has recently come to be preferred among scholars and those who seek to avoid offense in inter-cultural dialog. "AD" spelled out in its full original form is Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ) and thus potentially offensive, see research by El_C.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 20:50, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. While I agree entirely, the vote was inconclusive, so I don't think that this is our call to make. Ambi 12:17, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) This is utterly and entirely factually incorrect and very US POV-centric. It is (1) only true for the US (2) only true for certain portions of US academia. Passing a trivially false factual statement as a "finding" would be laughable. I've tried to put a more factually correct version below. - David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Factually wrong. →Raul654 19:49, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Concur with Grunt. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Use of CE

6.01) "CE" or Common Era has recently come to be preferred among certain portions of US academia and those who claim to seek to avoid offense in inter-cultural dialog. "AD" spelled out in its full original form is Anno Domini Nostri Iesu Christi ("in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ) and thus regarded by them as potentially offensive, see research by El_C. This does not necessarily hold elsewhere, e.g. in UK academia.

Support:

1. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) I think this is closer to factually accurate. Tweak as needed.

Oppose:

1. This is a) just as factually wrong as the first one, b) just as outside our mandate and c) damned offensive to a lot of people, just as the first one was. I'd like to think you were above this sort of thing, David. The first one was voted down for a reason. Ambi 12:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 13:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. I agree with what Ambi is saying except (B). As I have said elsewhere it's not outside our mandate, but that we have specifically chosen not to decide these kinds of questions. →Raul654 18:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
4. Not accurate Fred Bauder 22:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Offensiveness and discourtesy

6.1) The usage BC - AD is offensive to User:SouthernComfort and User:Jguk is aware of it, see User_talk:Jguk/Archive6#BC.2FAD_vs_BCE.2FCE. Despite this knowledge he continues to patrol articles edited by SouthernComfort for the purpose of policing the articles with regard to the style of era used, see:

• 21:23, 10 Jun 2005 Susa [3] Jguk: (rv)

Jguk reverts back to his changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD.

• 21:23, 10 Jun 2005 Khuzestan [4] Jguk: (rv - our readers are more important than SC's politicking)

Jguk reverts back to his changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD.

• 17:36, 10 Jun 2005 Susa [5] Jguk: (this shouldn't have changed in the first place - our international readership must come first)

Jguk changes from BCE to BC.

• 17:30, 10 Jun 2005 Origin of the name Khuzestan [6] Jguk: (no need to disambiguate here)

Jguk removes dating convention.

• 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 Msha'sha'iya [7] Jguk: (no need to disambiguate here)

Jguk removes dating convention.

• 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 Khuzestan [8] Jguk: (SC, you shouldn't change this, it's not reader-friendly)

Jguk changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD.

• 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 Ethnic politics of Khuzestan [9] Jguk: (→Roots of ethnic tension - no need to risk confusing people)

Jguk removes dating convention.

• 07:51, 10 Jun 2005 Saffarid dynasty [10] Jguk: (nothing to disambiguate)

Jguk removes dating convention.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 22:18, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) So very offensive SouthernComfort didn't bother mentioning it in their statement when the RFAr was put in.
2. David makes a valid point. →Raul654 17:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. Ambi 12:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zora

7) User:Jguk has patrolled the edits of User:Zora, who uses the notation BCE - CE "out of politeness" [11], changing the notation to BC - AD giving reasons which have no basis in Wikipedia policy "SC, please think of the reader, "rv - this article has (until you have very recently changed it) always used this notation - it has NOT suddenly become unacceptable - and please think of the reader", "tweak", "tweak", [12], [13] and I'll rv as I'm not sure I agree - also using "CE" will be confusing to the large # of people who have never heard of the term. I think it would be better if the years AH were added in brackets though}, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ali_ibn_Abi_Talib&diff=prev&oldid=14154898 "we only disambiguate when there is danger of confusion, there is none here"

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 13:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Jguk may be using dodgy excuses for his reverts, but that still doesn't change the fact that he's not the one acting against policy. Ambi 16:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overarching FOF

8) Both Jguk and Southerncomfort edited articles to change BC/BCE and AD/CE references to their preferred style. Jguk edited articles to make them self-consistent, in adherence with our policies; Southerncomfort edited articles to change them completely; both edit-warred over the style changes.

Support:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (made some changes - discussed with Raul first)
2. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 22:07, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Simplistic
2. This is just as biased and patently untrue as the first batch. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. After looking at some diffs no the evidence page, I think Ambi is correct. →Raul654 03:56, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

8.1) Both Jguk and Southerncomfort edited articles to change BC/BCE and AD/CE references to their preferred style. This was done in some cases to make articles consistent, but in other cases, involved changing date systems outright, which was against policy.

Support:

1. Ambi 03:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 05:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Fine by me.
4. sannse (talk) 29 June 2005 08:58 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 14:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

Sockpuppet

9) An anonymous editor, emboldened by the confusion the Arbitration Committee has shown in this matter, has begun devoting themselves to removing Common Era notation, see user contributions, the usual comment is "(use normal form of year)."

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 23:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Perhaps if you did not write such openly biased remedies, there would be no confusion. They can happily be reverted. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 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}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Limitation on editing by Jguk

1) User:Jguk is prohibited from removing or changing common era notation in any article for one year.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. No. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
2. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) No.
3. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 08:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1.1) Jguk is admonished to use the dispute resolution process rather than engaging in edit-warring, should he encounter a similar situation in the future.

Support:

1. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

#David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Fine by me. Prefer 3.

Oppose:

1. Ambi 03:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Fred Bauder 14:33, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC) I see an obsession here which does little to advance Wikipedia's mission.
3. ➥the Epopt 13:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. →Raul654 08:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

1. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort admonished for edit warring

2) User:SouthernComfort is admonished to use the dispute resolution process rather than engaging in edit warring should he encounter a similar situation in the future.

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:36, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. ➥the Epopt 01:07, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

#David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) Prefer 3.

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Warnings

3) Jguk, Southerncomfort, and other involved users are warned strongly to abide by our policies (as described in FOF 8)

Support:

1. →Raul654 17:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
2. sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
4. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Fred Bauder 22:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) Inadequate finding of fact

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement of remedy

1) Should User:Jguk remove common era notation from any article or change it to BC - AD he may be banned for a short time (up to a week for repeat offenses).

Support:

1. Fred Bauder 19:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. Ambi 03:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. Neutrality^talk 03:40, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
3. David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) No.
4. →Raul654 17:41, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

This decision is shaping up to be monumentally stupid. - David Gerard 11:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My abstention on most of these is because I prefer the simpler version Raul has suggested. -- sannse (talk) 19:07, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ditto - David Gerard 19:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This makes three. My version (following Raul's suggestions) is still in the history, if anyone cares to resurrect it. Ambi 03:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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.

1. I think this has gone on long enough. →Raul654 03:31, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

#David Gerard 05:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Kill this thing. New evidence has just come through - hold off on closing for now.

1. Oppose in the absence of an adequate decision Fred Bauder 03:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
2. Oppose, as 8.1 still needs one more vote, and add that I despise Fred's tactic of opposing the closure of a case because he didn't get his own way. Ambi 07:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Motion to close 2

1. I've added my missed vote, let's close -- sannse (talk) 29 June 2005 09:03 (UTC)
2. Close Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 12:17 (UTC)
3. →Raul654 June 29, 2005 12:58 (UTC)
4. ➥the Epopt 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)