Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.
When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.
As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] .
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.
Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.
If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.
Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.
The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.
{{user}}Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would show specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.
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.
In essence, all of Sortan's user contributions are submitted as evidence that he is not here to help the encyclopaedia. See: Sortan's user contributions. Since arriving here Sortan has made 662 edits . Except as noted below, these edits are not substantive. Many have been reverts (mostly of myself, but of other readers too).
I was away on business and then on holiday for most of November and the beginning part of December. Sortan’s edits become much fewer in this period.
In my absence, in early December, Sortan latched onto a new user, User:Chooserr instead:
, (note that none of the editors Sortan contacts here were involved in the relate dispute - indeed, this seems to have been somewhat indiscriminate as some of these users supported me): , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , (which attacks User:David Gerard), , , (which attacks User:Squell)
I believe this to be a complete list of non-minor, substantive edits made by Sortan. This is out of a total edit count of 662:
On 9 December, User:David Gerard, who has CheckUser access, revealed that the following accounts as sock puppets who had been voting multiply on RfA and AfD: CDThieme (talk · contribs), No Account (talk · contribs), Tree&Leaf (talk · contribs), Longboat (talk · contribs), Uncarved Block (talk · contribs), Quintusdecimus (talk · contribs), Via Egnatia (talk · contribs), Jguk. (talk · contribs) (note the dot at the end of this one, which appeared just after I'd asked for my old account to be renamed to that account (those edits have now gone to Jguk 2) puppetry
I believe that there is evidence that shows beyond reasonable doubt, that Sortan and the above users are one and the same. I have notified CDThieme of this part of my evidence and the comments on the workshop here: .This evidence is below:
CDThieme edits
CDThieme and Sortan are both accounts used on a very regular basis. Yet on Cheese it took Sortan 5 days to revert a jguk edit on Cheese, from 11 September to 16 September an unusually long time for Sortan to revert where he was going to do so. During this time, CDThieme made one edit on 12 September – the other sock puppets also failed to edit on 14 and 15 September. The list is as follows:
CDThieme and his known sock puppets, like Sortan, rarely mark their edits as minor, even though they almost always invariably are.
Some of CDThieme’s sock puppets also very, very occasional make a rare substantive edit. For example, User:Tree&Leaf created the stub article Rasmus B. Anderson.
Interest in Jewish issues - see, for example, Sortan’s edits of 17 July. CDThieme’s talk page previously revealed himself to be Jewish
Free accusations of vandalism - both CDThieme and Sortan display this trait. See their talk pages and edit histories for further evidence.
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion, for example, your first assertion might be "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring". Here you would list specific edits to specific articles which show Jimmy Wales engaging in edit warring
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion, for example, your second assertion might be "Jimmy Wales makes personal attacks". Here you would list specific edits where Jimmy Wales made personal attacks.
