Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Proposed decision
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Ddstretch in topic Is the ban necessary?
Arbitrators active on this case
editActive:
- Blnguyen
- Charles Matthews
- FloNight
- FT2
- Jdforrester
- Jpgordon
- Kirill Lokshin
- Matthew Brown (Morven)
- Sam Blacketer
- Thebainer
Inactive:
- Deskana
- FayssalF
- Paul August
- UninvitedCompany
- To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.
Is the ban necessary?
editWhat if he were restricted from commenting on the geograhical/political issues of the English county system (broadly interpereted) with a rapidly increasing block system (1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year for instance) should he do so. The reason I ask this, is because the incivility etc etc was all related to the counties issues. ViridaeTalk 22:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Although I considered this too, I don't think that's a full and/or true reflection of Yorkshirian's actions. The evidence page confirms that Yorkshrian has been hostile about multiple issues; counties of England aside, there are civility issues relating to infoboxes, cities, Robin Hood, administrator's actions, ancient history of Britain, maps, and so on and so forth. We're talking about hostilities surrounding pretty much the entire extent of his areas of contribution. --Jza84 | Talk 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- The disruptive editing is now extending into other areas, if the behaviour of the last week or so is anything to go by: a large number of dioceses in England and Wales that are part of the Roman Catholic church have been subject to edit-warring by two editors, of which Yorkshirian is one. The dispute involves repeated renaming and reverting of the renaming of the dioceses from the form "Diocese of X" to "Roman Catholic Diocese of X". Yorkshirian favours the first form ("Diocese of X"), though it seems that a widespread convention eventually settled is that they should be of the second form ("Roman Catholic Diocese of X"), which has been suggested here and here. The reversions have resulted in some cut-and-paste moves that have removed the editing histories of these articles, and in one case, Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, a talk page of one form of title was redirected to the article page of the other form of title. Yorkshirian has engaged in personal attacks with other editor involved and was unrepentant when I took steps to stop the edit warring. Some details can be found in all sections of Talk:Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, and in User talk:Yorkshirian#Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle or Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, and User talk:Benkenobi18#WP:NAME, with a response by Yorkshirian to myself on User talk:Ddstretch#Yorkshirian's page moves. A partial list of the articles (in the form Roman Catholic Diocese of X") involved which probably need sorting out are: Roman Catholic Diocese of Middlesbrough, Roman Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury, Roman Catholic Diocese of Salford, Roman Catholic Diocese of Arundel and Brighton, Roman Catholic Diocese of Wrexham,Roman Catholic Diocese of Plymouth, Roman Catholic Diocese of Lancaster, Roman Catholic Diocese of Clifton, Roman Catholic Diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, and various archdioceses that have also been similarly subject to renaming: Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Westminster, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham,Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Southwark, Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cardiff. At least one of the page moves contained highly inappropriate edit summaries (accusations of lies being committed here.) User:Keith D has already protected and renamed two of the above cases, but further checks on all such dioceses and archdioceses in England and Wales associated with the Roman Catholic Church need to be checked. So, I think the problem is widespread, and is ongoing even during the course of this Arbcom procedure. DDStretch (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)