Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Louis Epstein/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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, 0 Arbitrators is/are recused and 3 are inactive (Sannse, Fennec, David Gerard) so 5 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.

Contents

[edit] Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on the discussion page.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed final decision

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Rules of punctuation

1) Users are expected to follow the usual rules of English punctuation, Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Punctuation

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. →Raul654 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Reversion

2) While Wikipedia policy anticipates that disputes may arise regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles, should disputes arise editors are expected to make reasonable compromises regarding the wording and content of Wikipedia articles. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. →Raul654 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 05:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Unconventional punctuation

1) Louis Epstein is an otherwise productive Wikipedia editor who has adapted spacing and formatting practices which are at variance with usual Wikipedia practice, his attitude is that "Putting waste space after punctuations marks is vandalism!" [1]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Requests by community

2) Numerous editors have requested Louis Epstein follow conventional punctuation practices, see User_talk:12.144.5.2#Spaces_after_periods_and_commas

Support:
  1. →Raul654 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Persistent eccentricity

3) Unrepentant, despite numerous pleas to adopt conventional punctuation practices, he persists [2]

Support:
  1. →Raul654 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. ➥the Epopt 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Persistent reversion

4) Louis Epstein has repeatedly reverted to versions of the articles Supercentenarian ([3], [4]) and National longevity recordholders ([5], [6], [7]) which do not reflect the version preferred by other editors working on the article in layout and/or content.

Support:
  1. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 04:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. James F. (talk) 12:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. →Raul654 19:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] 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.

[edit] Conventional punctuation required

1) Louis Epstein, editing under any user name, as 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) or any other anonymous IP, may be briefly blocked if he neglects use of conventional punctuation. During 2005 no block shall exceed one day. During 2006 no block shall exceed one week. During 2007 no block shall exceed one month. Thereafter no block shall exceed one year.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 12:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. rather bludgeon-like, but that seems to be what it will take ➥the Epopt 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. James F. (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC) If a bit strong.
  4. Not happy with this, but I don't see much alternative. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. I'd prefer this didn't have to be enforced, but... Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. →Raul654 14:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC) - not sure if this is the best solution to the problem.

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Responsibilities if you unblock Louis Epstein

1) Any administrator who unblocks Louis Epstein prior to the expiration of a block placed on him under this decision shall assume the responsibility of correcting every instance of unconventional punctuation he makes until such time as the original block would have expired. Neglect to do so shall result in a ban of the administrator until such time as the original block would have expired.

Support:
  1. Fred Bauder 13:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
  1. amusing but absurd; would require the unblocker to monitor Wikipedia 24×7 to avoid accusations of "neglect" ➥the Epopt 21:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. I concur with Epopt →Raul654 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Agreed with Epopt. Also note that 12.144 is a dynamic dialup range and an admin might legitimately unblock in here for collateral damage. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Abstain:
  1. James F. (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC) But we do need some way of dealing with fall-out...
  2. I'm with Jdforrestor, this probably won't work, but we need something. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stayed enforcement

2) The remedies of this decision are not to be enforced so long as Babajobu is fixing Louis Epstein's punctuation habits as per his voluntary offer [8]. If the Arbitration Committee later, through a request for clarification, decides that this is no longer being done, the remedies in this decision will come into full effect, unless an approved arrangement has been made for another user to clean up after Louis Epstein. Babajobu is under no obligation to continue doing this and may walk away at any time, although if he does choose to quit he is requested to notify the Arbitration Committee that he has done so.

Support:
  1. →Raul654 17:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Fred Bauder 18:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (Added link to Babajobu's offer and clarified that Babajobu's offer is voluntary and that he is not bound by this decision to do so indefinitely).
  4. isn't this a "stay" rather than a "commute"? ➥the Epopt 18:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (Yes, you are correct →Raul654 19:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC))
  5. Yup. And it's not "sentence", it's "enforcement". James F. (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose:
Abstain:

[edit] Discussion by Arbitrators

[edit] General

  • I am not convinced that the proposed remedies will do any good. Louis is unlikely to accept these restrictions (see, e.g. [9]) and I am reluctant to create a complex enforcement regime for an editor who is unlikely to comply with it. Just the same, I am unwilling to outright ban a useful contributor because of a quirk, annoying though it be. I also note that bans of this editor will be difficult to enforce because he appears to use a dynamic dialup range. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Many editors are useful contributors, but only a small minority are quite so irritating, and the irritating ones tend to drive other good editors away. We need to balance the potential loss of one good editor against the potential loss of several good editors, through no fault of their own. Jayjg (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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. (While I do not agree with the remedy) I believe everything has passed →Raul654 05:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC) - Oppose, for the moment. I'd like a few more days to consider Babajobu's last-minute offer. Ok, all cleared up now and ready to be closed. →Raul654 05:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC) As with Raul, pause. James F. (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC) No need to keep open. James F. (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Close Fred Bauder 14:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jayjg (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. ➥the Epopt 00:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. Close it. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Pause to consider principle 2 supra. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Close it. Kelly Martin (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Close. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Louis_Epstein_Proposed_decision_9b9e.html"