Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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] [1].

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.

Contents


[edit] Evidence presented by {your user name}

[edit] <day1> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] <day2> <month>

  • <timestamp1>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp2>
    • What happened.
  • <timestamp3>
    • What happened.

[edit] Evidence presented by MPerel

Though no policy standardizing era style preference currently exists, only a nonbinding style guide permitting both BCE/CE and BC/AD, Jguk/Jongarrettuk has been unilateraly changing BCE/CE to BC/AD systemwide having made over 1,000 edits to nearly 700 articles since October.

In mid-May, Slrubenstein brought a well-advertised proposal to the community to discuss making BCE/CE the Wikipedia standard. While most editors in general demonstrated a preference for BCE/CE as the academic standard, many of these same editors voted against the proposed policy as they did not want to completely eliminate BC/AD as an option. Those rejecting Slrubenstein's systemwide proposal for the most part were not against BCE/CE, but against making it the only standard. Jguk interpreted this to mean opposite of what it means, that all dates should now be BC/AD. Even in specific cases where the majority found it more NPOV in a particular article to use BCE/CE (see Jesus where a 2/3 majority favored BCE/CE over BC/AD), Jguk refused to allow BCE/CE, even rejecting the widely accepted compromise of BC/BCE incorporating both.

In January, Jguk quietly attempted to impose his point of view by simply editing policy to make BC/AD the only Wikipedia standard without wide community discussion. In December, Jguk withdrew as a candidate for arbitrator after other editors specifically complained about his problem behavior due to his BC/AD obsession.

Of the nearly 700 articles where jguk changed BCE/CE to BC/AD, there are 27 articles in which he made 4 or more attempts to impose BC/AD when other editors resisted his changes. He also edit-warred at Common Era reverting an external link 15 times.

(more to come...)

[edit] 11 June 2005

[edit] 10 June 2005

[edit] 1 Jun 2005

[edit] 28 May 2005

[edit] 27 May 2005

[edit] 26 May 2005

[edit] 24 May 2005

[edit] 14 May 2005

[edit] 10 Apr 2005

[edit] 8 Mar 2005

[edit] 2 Mar 2005

[edit] 21 Jan 2005

[edit] 28 Nov 2004

[edit] 15 Nov 2004

[edit] 5 Nov 2004

[edit] 8 Nov 2004

[edit] 30 Oct 2004

[edit] Evidence presented by Zora

This is the first time I've ever done anything like this. I've done my best; please tell me if it's not right. I have only included diffs related to articles on which I've worked. This is only a small part of the aggressive editing.

[edit] 22 May 2005

  • 08:31 Talk:Jguk [186]
    • This is my original post to Jguk's talk page, which started him on a campaign to change many of the articles on which I've worked.

[edit] 23 May 2005

  • 11:59 Islam and other religions [190]
    • This is the one that upset me -- I'd just posted it -- it was NEW. I'd combined the old article, new material excised from [Islam], and completely re-arranged it.
  • 12:35 Muhammad as a warrior [192]
    • I am the original author of this article.
  • 12:43 Succession to Muhammad [194]
    • I just realized -- I am the original author of this article, and I used CE throughout. Jguk claimed to be enforcing the existing rules and he broke them.
  • 18:38 Khuzestan [196]
    • This one could be confusing. He's reverting to a version of the article that I wrote (and which Southern Comfort will not accept), minus all the BCE/CE dates I used in the history section.
  • 20:29 Ali ibn Abi Talib [197]

[edit] 24 May 2005

  • 06:22 Ali ibn Abi Talib [200]
Some of these links are bad and some are duplicates. Fred Bauder 13:34, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
But no one tells me which are "bad". So I clicked through all my links, corrected three of them (I must have done something wrong collecting them, though I can't figure out what) and removed one, which didn't seem to illustrate the problem. I didn't find any duplicates. If there are multiple references to one articles, that's because Jguk kept reverting or changing to his preferred date format. Zora 20:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Violet/Riga

In defence of Jguk I believe it is appropriate to show the actions of other users. A decision to impose a punishment against one of these may been seen as unfair if similar action isn't taken against other parties. Virtually all edits have been good faith, with both parties thinking their way is the best way for the articles, but both sides could be accused of POV pushing. I'll present a summary of some of the articles of which I am aware there has been a dispute along with details of the main promoter of BCE/CE, SouthernComfort. As I have been involved there may be some elements of bias, though I have tried to avoid this. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The major problem comes because of the interpretation of the policies and guidelines regarding the topic. It is generally acknowledged that articles should not be changed from one spelling style to another (such as British English to American English) without a lot of discussion. However, there is no enforceable policy that reflects changes between era systems, hence Wikipedia:Eras. Both sides have good points but clear POVs. Pro-BCE/CE people insist that it is appropriate for (all?) non-Western European and non-Christian articles and that the changeover of many of these articles should be done because the main contributors of the articles have gained consensus. However, with the recent proposal regarding this having come up against major opposition, it does seem wrong to be going ahead with the change.

Personally I don't see the need for any action against those involved. The articles involved will be protected if the warring continues and they will be blocked for 3RR violation if the situation arises. I think Wikipedia:Eras will be able to prevent future (and maybe current) problems regarding this. violet/riga (t) 15:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article "List of kings of Persia"

List of kings of Persia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Details:

The discussion on the article talk page began 05:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC) when user:SouthernComfort stated his case for the change (just after he had done a reversion). Several people opposed, and several supported. My view was that the article should remain at its original state until such discussions had taken place and consensus reached. The opposing view was that the consensus of the main contributors to the article was to use BCE/CE. The edit wars continued until I protected it (having waited for 11 hours for another admin to do so after a WP:RFPP). violet/riga (t) 09:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article "Zoroastrianism"

Zoroastrianism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Still being discussed on the talk page. violet/riga (t) 09:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User SouthernComfort

SouthernComfort (talk • contribs)

One of the main promoters of BCE/CE is SouthernComfort. He is the one edit-warring with Jguk the most, and is the one that originally changed many of the articles from BC/AD to BCE/CE. I think the main problem here is that SouthernComfort had his edits reverted by more than one person on all the articles he changed. If he had stopped to discuss this rather than continue the reversions then this may have helped this situation. Note, however, that SouthernComfort is not the only person to have wanted to use BCE/CE and others have supported him and also reverted to his version.

SouthernComfort has repeatedly stated his view:

  • "I will not allow Christian POV terms to dominate this article - let them impose BC/AD on Christian and Christian history related articles, but I will not allow them to do so here." [203].
  • "There is no dispute that BC/AD is Christian POV terminology" [204]

This is quite a problem because he is not listening to the objections of people that do in fact dispute that. While he may have the support of some editors, he doesn't have the support of everybody, yet continues to edit war. He has also not given any input to Wikipedia:Eras. violet/riga (t) 15:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] My recommendation

No action would be required against any person involved if we push through and enforce Wikipedia:Eras. violet/riga (t) 09:06, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by srs

Ever since Jguk joined Wikipedia (originally as Jongarrettuk), he has engaged in a systematic campaign to rid all articles of BCE/CE notation, using the following methods:

  • Claiming a need for consistency.
  • Claiming that the article first used BC/AD.
  • Changing references of BCE to xxx years ago. [205]
  • Claiming that users don't understand BCE/CE terminology.

I apologize for the age of some of these diffs as it was originally my intention to start from Jguk's earliest edits and work my way forward, but I severely underestimated the scale of the changes Jguk has made, and as such enumerating all examples of date changes would be far too time consuming, to collate as well as to read. The following is just a sample of some of Jguk's edits to remove BCE/CE. I would also like to add that aside from changing BCE/CE to BC/AD, Jguk has made no other significant contribution to these articles. He has been asked as far back as October of 2004 to stop unilaterally making changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD [206] but has continued his campaign to this day.

Many of his edits changing date formats are marked minor and/or have no description. Even when they do have descriptions, he never explicitly states that he is changing date formats, but instead the edit summary contains, at various times, "tweaks", "consistency", "think of the reader", and the like.

[edit] Consistency

Consistency is a good thing to strive for, but unfortunately, in this case, Jguk uses consistency as a weapon, seizing upon the usage of even one instance of BC/AD as an excuse to change the entire article to BC/AD, instead of being an impartial editor.

  • Bihar This article contained 8 instances of BCE as compared to one instance of BC before Jguk's edit [207]
  • Silk Road 10 instances of BC/AD vs 19 instances of BCE/CE before Jguk's edit [208]

[edit] First Use

First use can be a good guide to settle debates, but articles must be allowed to evolve with wishes of new contributors. If "first use" were made a hard and fast rule, then United Kingdom would have to use American English as the article began life from the CIA World fact-book, yet today, United Kingdom uses British English, as it should. We need to have the flexibility to adapt and change articles, yet User Jguk has used "first use" as a weapon to prevent other contributors (whom, it should be noted, contribute content, instead of only changing date formats to the articles in question), from making any date related changes. These changes, in general, have met with no objection by any of the other editors of the articles in question, but only from Jguk.

  • Greek Conquests in India First major (non-stub) contributor [209], uses BCE/CE (original stub used BC/AD). Jguk, citing the need for consistency with original author changes BCE/CE to BC/AD: [210], and [211]
  • India Preventing the adoption of BCE/CE notation by two different editors [214] and [215]

[edit] Miscellaneous

  • Gambeson Article is created and consistently uses only BCE/CE notation, until User:Jongarrettuk changes to BC notation [216]
  • Harp Article is created and consistently uses BCE, until User:Jongarrettuk changes to BC notation [217]
  • Livy Article is created [218] using BCE/CE notation. When User:Jongarrettuk finds the article, it uses 3 BCEs and 1 AD, yet User:Jongarrettuk converts all BCEs to BCs [219]
  • Pella Article is created, as a stub, using BC/AD. First major contributor uses BCE/CE [221]. Date format changed by User:Jongarrettuk [222]
  • Battle of Megiddo 1469 BC Article is started as a stub using BC terminology [223]. First major contributor switches to BCE format [224] and moves article to Battle of Megiddo (15th century BCE), citing his reasons on the talk page. On October 24, 2004 (approximately 4 months after the initial changes and move) User:Jongarrettuk unilaterally moves the page to Battle of Megiddo (15th century BC) and changes to BCE/CE notation [225], giving no explanation on the talk page, and no edit summaries.

In summary, I do believe that User:Jguk honestly believes that BC/AD is better and more widely understood, but he fails to accord BCE/CE or its proponents any consideration that they may also genuinely disagree, and have valid reasons for doing so.

[edit] Evidence presented by David Mertz

[edit] Article Parthia

Disruptive insertion of BC/AD has not slowed since RfA filed. No content added by Jguk. Examples in Parthia. Contrary to Jguk's contention, none of these examples are of removal of extraneous BCE/CE terms, but always insertion of BC/AD (likewise for almost all examples provided by other editors).

[edit] 26 May

[edit] 24 May

[edit] 23 May

[edit] Evidence presented by Gene Nygaard

Rebuttal of item number [7] by User:Zora, Islam and other religions [232]

  • This was presented in the specification of charges against Jguk as a change from CE to AD. Zora has done nothing to clarify this impression. Yet, as has been pointed out on the talk page there, an issue Zora was well aware of and participated in, this was not a change from CE to AD. It was the removal of an at least arguably unnecessary specification of either, a change of what was originally "ninth and tenth centuries" and changed to "ninth and tenth centuries CE" back to the original "ninth and tenth centuries". See Talk:Islam and other religions.

Gene Nygaard 16:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Zocky

Gene Nygaards' "rebuttal" helps us pinpoint the exact problem here. In an article about Islam, unspecified "9th and 10th centuries" could easily refer to the Islamic calendar. Yet, on that talk page, Jguk claims Incidentally, I have in the past removed both "AD"s and "CE"s from articles where there is no chance of any confusion about which year is being referred to. Zocky 07:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Short answers to RickK's concerns below:

  • English language: Hundreds of millions of Muslims live in countries where English is an official language, and many of them speak it as their first language. In many contexts, especially when discussing Islam, they use the Islamic calendar.
  • most articles use Gregorian calendar: Readers, especially those who have followed a link from another site, or those who are reading the article somewhere completely out of the context of Wikipedia (as our license allows), don't necessarily know what most our articles use.
  • anti-Western bias of BCE/CE: I really don't understand this argument. Seems to me that there's as much anti-Western bias in writing "BCE" as there is anti-world bias in writing "color", i.e. none. Zocky 08:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by RickK

One really has to wonder how Zocky can possibly believe that unspecified "9th and 10th centuries" could easily refer to the Islamic calendar. in an English language encyclopedia, the majority of whose articles refer to the Gregorian calendar. Yet more insertion of the anti-Western bias this use of BCE/CE incorporates. RickK 07:29, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by jguk

[edit] Evidence about User:Slrubenstein

The origins of this dispute arose with User:Slrubenstein deciding to launch a campaign to replace the BC/AD date notation that WP predominantly uses with BCE/CE throughout. He started it on Jesus (see also Talk:Jesus).

He then launched a full campaign - very much on his own terms - which resulted in a vote shown on [233]. Although Slrubenstein chose the questions, restricted debate to what he wanted to discuss, his proposal not only failed to obtain a consensus but did not even come close to getting a majority. (Note that I did not even vote - it being clear there was no consensus for Slrubenstein's policy proposal.)

The issue should have stopped here. However, at around this time User:SouthernComfort began changing date notation as if Slrubenstein's proposal had passed (see below). After I reverted him (as the proposal had failed) he asked Slrubenstein what he should dovs BC/AD as regards to existing articles. Had Slrubenstein answered, as he should have done, "I agree with you, but unfortunately there was no consensus for this change, and if you keep making it you are only likely to annoy other users" the issue may have stopped there. Instead, Slrubenstein invited the dispute to continue, promising SouthernComfort support [234]

He did this by reverting, but his real aim of trying to get the ArbCom to support his position (at least in part) was shown early on [235]. Note also that when he did file a case, it was straight to ArbCom, with no RfC or RfM (See his original RfAr complaint).

Throughout the debate Slrubenstein has been taking a politician's approach - adapting his argument and tactics to keep himself. I'm afraid I am not so politically minded as him, so my response is not so cleverly crafted as his accusations.

For example, despite his starting his campaign on the Jesus article, he later claimed that he did not mind seeing BC/AD in articles connected with Christianity. He also followed the politician's approach of trying to keep himself in the clear whilst encouraging others to do the dirty work. I admit I know that by opposing someone intent on enforcing what they see as a "politically correct" view, I was putting my head above the parapet. This is the culmination of it. But as can be seen, all I was doing was reverting attempts to enforce Slrubenstein's failed proposal. It is disappointing that he has engineered a concerted effort by a small number of editors to implement it on a small number of articles.

I argue that Slrubenstein should have accepted that his proposal had been defeated. He should not have incited another user to start edit wars and use aggressive tactics to get his proposal adopted by the back door. As an admin, Slrubenstein should be held to a higher degree of responsibility than non-admins. He has clearly failed.

[edit] Examples of Slrubenstein actively edit-warring

The following diffs show Slrubenstein actively involved in edit-warring to support his failed proposal. In each case the articles started off using BC/AD notation before SouthernComfort changed them. A number of users (RickK, VioletRiga and myself) reverted to the original forms, Slrubenstein then edit warred with these three users by re-added his preferred notation:

[236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251]

[edit] Comments about the behaviour of others

As noted above, and as the evidence clearly demonstrates, all I have been doing is reverting attempts to enforce a failed policy proposal. For this I have been accused of vandalism, suffered religious insults and received comments that the editors themselves have admitted were deemed to cause offence to me. I have not stooped to their level (as can be seen by the lack of accusations of personal attacks by me). I considered entering this behaviour into evidence for the ArbCom's consideration, but have decided against it. I think it's important to note that whilst others have carried out his bidding, it is Slrubenstein's actions by deliberately picking a dispute, then inciting others to revert war over it, and then to attempt to bring a case before ArbCom with a request that someone should be banned from a wide range of articles merely because they have a different outlook than him that demand scrutiny.

[edit] Comments on my actions

Throughout my actions have been to revert changes to articles that were made in an attempt to implement Slrubenstein's failed proposal. The evidence noted above demonstrates that. My views on the underlying debate are clear - but that is not for ArbCom to consider. The principle here is what should happen if some users try to implement a proposal that has clearly failed to gain consensus - and to edit war when they are reverted.

Note also that I was not the only one reverting these changes - VioletRiga, RickK and others also reverted them: Slrubenstein's policy proposal had failed after all.

As Zora has noted, I have also edited some articles related to Islam. Mohammad was born in the 6th century, and Islam dates from around the late 6th/early 7th century. There is no need to disambiguate years between BC and AD. When I see them, I remove all references to both AD and CE as unnecessary. I was surprised to see Zora's comments - I did not see them, and do not see them, as part of this dispute.

I have restricted my comments, my defence and my evidence against Slrubenstein to the original charges - which effectively were that I was wrong to revert (along with others) attempts by a small group of editors to implement a policy that failed to gain consensus. If the ArbCom has any questions it would like to ask of me, or other areas that it would like me to address or provide more links for, I will happily do so. Just leave a message on my talk page and let me know where the questions are. Kind regards, jguk 19:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence presented by Sunray

For some time now, Jguk (formerly User:Jongarrettuk) has engaged in a destructive pattern of edits relating to dating of eras (BC/AD; BCE/CE) in articles. As I believe my evidence will show, his actions are in violation of fundamental principles of Wikipedia relating to NPOV, consensus, and assume good faith.

[edit] Article Common Era

Jguk’s inability to accept consensus was evident in his behaviour related to inclusion of www.religioustolerance.org as an external link. The website is the highest-volume religious site on the Internet. It added new information not contained in the article.

[edit] January/February

  • 14:57, 2005 Jan 25 Jguk [252]
  • 00:30, 2005 Feb 3 Sunray [253]
    • Jguk's initial revert and my re-revert.

[edit] February

  • 04:53, 2005 Feb 14 Jguk [254]
  • 20:02, 2005 Feb 14 Neutrality [255]
  • 23:05, 2005 Feb 14 Jguk [256]
  • 00:15, 2005 Feb 15 Sunray [257]
    • Despite lengthy discussions on the talk page, (see Talk:Common Era), his reverts continued. Note that this is just one thread out of dozens of edit conflicts between Jguk and other users working on this article.

[edit] March

  • 14:42, 2005 Mar 10 Jguk [258]
  • 02:10, 2005 Mar 12 Sunray [259]
  • 03:44, 2005 Mar 12 Jguk [260]
  • 00:41, 2005 Mar 23 Dablaze [261]
    • Dablaze tries to suggest to Jguk that he consider improving edits rather than reverting them
  • 14:36, 2005 Mar 23 Azkar [262]
  • 22:22, 2005 Mar 24 Jguk [263]
  • 10:17, 2005 Mar 25 Dablaze [264]
    • Despite continuing discussion with several editors of the article, the reverts continued. An RfC was then initiated. [265]. Jguk relents (for the time being).

[edit] May

  • 10:17, 2005 May 27 Jguk [266]
    • The debate about inclusion of the link extended from January to April 2005. During that time, six users indicated a preference for keeping the religioustolerance.org link. Jguk remained opposed. Finally he relented. However, as if to illustrate his inability to abide by consensus, on May 27, he suddenly removed the link once more.

[edit] Chinese equivalent of BCE/CE

During the religioustolerance debate, Jguk continued to remove material contributed by other authors, showing an inability to assume good faith. For example:

  • 11:04, 2005 Feb 18 [267]
  • 19:06, 2005 Feb 18 [268]
  • 04:21, 2005 Feb 19 [269]
  • 08:04, 2005 Feb 19 [270]
  • 08:25, 2005 Feb 19 [271]
  • 01:07, 2005 Feb 20 [272]
    • An anon contributed the following statement to the article: “The Chinese equivalent of "Common Era" is universally adopted in China.” Jguk reverted and refused to permit inclusion of this statement until other editors placed a query on the China page and Wikipedians Ran and Jiang commented that in fact it was indeed common in China

[edit] Articles on Persia

Beginning on May 21, 2005, a number of reverts were conducted by Jguk on articles related to Persia. A new user by the name of SouthernComfort had changed the Era date notation on some of the Persian articles to BCE/CE. SouthernComfort’s rationale as stated on Talk: List of kings of Persia was the following:

“… [I]t is my belief that BCE/CE is justified in this article since none of the Iranian rulers and empires (including the Elamites) have ever been Christian. To impose 'BC/AD' terminology in this article (and other Iranian history related articles) is, IMHO, POV... SouthernComfort 05:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that SouthernComfort has made significant contributions as an author to articles on Persia (many sorely in need of clean-up). As Jguk was not an author of articles on Persia, I reverted several of Jguk’s changes and attempted to discuss the Manual of Style guidelines and the need for consensus on the talk pages of the articles concerned. Where a strong majority of authors indicated a preference for a particular notation, an attempt was made to articulate the consensus and maintain that notation.

For example, on List of kings of Persia, the relevent section from the MoS was quoted and the following entry added:

“It is up to the author(s) of an article to determine the dating system(s) to be used and there must be consistency with each article. In this case, for a non-Christian topic in a non-Christian region of the world, BCE/CE makes the most sense. Sunray 15:54, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • 22:54, 2005 May 22 Talk:Cambyses II of Persia [273]
    • An identical entry was added to the talk pages of several Persian articles. Where no one commented on their preference, articles remained BC/AD (note that this broke down as more users entered the revert war against Jguk—who became the lone user reverting to BC/AD).

However, most were changed to BCE/CE. A strong majority of authors of Persian articles have indicated a preference for BCE/CE on one or more talk pages (these include: SouthernComfort, Siafu, Zereshk, Jpbrenna and Zora. Codex Sinaiticus indicated a preference for BC/AD. Most of these authors indicated that they wished to stay out of the edit war.

Jguk refused to abide by any agreements and continued to revert. After all other users had ceased reverts, Jguk continued until he was the last revert on virtually all of the articles on Persia.

The article Darius I of Persia illustrates the situation. Note that the patterns of reverts on this page is typical of dozens of articles that were the subject of the “revert war” from May 21 – 27.

  • 13:39, 2005 May 21 [274]
  • 00:17, 2005 May 22 [275]
    • On May 21, SouthernComfort makes the change to BCE/CE, followed by a revert by Jguk
  • 08:43, 2005 May 22 [276]
  • 10:02, 2005 May 22 [277]
  • 13:55, 2005 May 22 [278]
  • 22:58, 2005 May 22 [279]
  • 03:48, 2005 May 23 [280]
    • A series of reverts by Slrubenstein, Jguk, SouthernComfort, RickK, and me followed. During this time, attempts were made to discuss the matter on the talk page and get consensus (to no avail).
  • 18:16, 2005 May 23 [281]
    • Note that the only author of this article to indicate a preference Jpbrenna, favours BCE/CE notation, as indicated by this entry
  • 21:37, 2005 May 25 [282]
  • 23:57, 2005 May 27 [283]
  • 05:29, 2005 May 28 [284]
  • 06:59, 2005 May 28 [285]
  • 07:24, 2005 May 28 [286]
    • Jguk continues his campaign and gets the last revert.

[edit] Article Taoism

  • 11:25, 2005 Jun 1 Jguk m (rv recent change) [287]
    • Jguk's reverts of eras is not confined to Persia, nor has it stopped pending the outcome of this arbitration. This revert was to Taoism where the dating had been inconsistent, employing both BCE/CE and BC/AD.

[edit] Summary

Jguk's edits and unbending statements on talk pages show him unable to describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate as set out in Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. On BCE/CE issues, he rigidly maintains his POV and avoids working towards consensus. Finally, his tendency to revert rather than build on other editors' contributions illustrates his failure to assume good faith.

[edit] Corrective action

While a policy clarification theoretically might improve the situation that exists with dating of eras, attempts to clarify policy by Slrubenstein and Violet/riga have gone nowhere (Wikipedia talk:Eras shows the failure of the latter proposal). It is also possible that the existing policy framework is adequate, if users like Jguk would abide by it. Judicious corrective action could assist this process. Given Jguk's failure to abide by policies where BCE/CE is concerned, it seems advisable to restrict his edits on Common Era and articles on Persia and to prohibit him from reverting eras from BCE/CE to BC/AD.

[edit] Evidence presented by Maurreen

[edit] 23 January

  • 20:16, [289]
    • Even though Jguk had already experienced controversy regarding styles for eras, he neglected to state on the talk page that his proposal would change that style. He said: The revision also includes some slight tweaks to policy. Slight, because although some articles following current policy would not comply with the revision, the number of those articles is quite small. He also apparently neglected to publicize his proposal anywhere but a single page. Maurreen 03:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

19 October

  • 19:02 [290]
  • 19:03 [291]
  • 19:04 [292]
    • Citing "consistency", Jguk changed "BCE" and "CE" to "BC" and "AD" in the Ancient warfare article. These are a few of many similar examples of his behavior. However, the article before his changes had approximately 25 instances of "BCE" and "CE", compared with about five instances of "BC" and "AD".

25 October

  • 19:02, [293]
    • Citing "consistency", Jguk changed the era notation in about 40 places, to conform to the three instances using "BC".

18 May

  • 16:01, [294]
    • For the Jesus article, the final vote shows a count of 31 to 19 favoring "BCE" and "CE".

11 May

  • 01:30[295]
    • Suggestion made for Jesus page to use both styles for eras.
  • 12:17, [296]
    • Five people voice support for the compromise; Jguk apparently is alone in opposition (at least as of this diff).

14 May

  • 16:10, [297]
    • Jguk confirms that he will not accept the compromise.

[edit] Evidence presented by SouthernComfort

Jguk has continued changing conventions in articles that I am currently working on from BCE/CE to BC/AD. In those articles where only CE is used, he removes it, leaving no dating convention, stating that there is no need to disambiguate.

Jguk reverts back to his changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD.
  • 21:23, 10 Jun 2005 Khuzestan [299] 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 [300] Jguk: (this shouldn't have changed in the first place - our international readership must come first)
Jguk changes from BCE to BC.
Jguk removes dating convention.
Jguk removes dating convention.
  • 17:25, 10 Jun 2005 Khuzestan [303] Jguk: (SC, you shouldn't change this, it's not reader-friendly)
Jguk changes from BCE/CE to BC/AD.
Jguk removes dating convention.
Jguk removes dating convention.

[edit] Evidence presented by Dablaze

I apologize in advance for diverging from the template for presenting evidence, but I believe that my method of organization in this particular case will be easier for all involved to follow.

[edit] Jguk's "meta-vandalism" of Wikipedia via the Common Era article

Over the many months I have been contributing to the Common Era article, and even before (see history page of Chinese art, Nov. 27-28, 2004), I have realized that User:Jguk harbors an intense personal bias against common era notation. As many others have already documented here, he incessantly reverts as many instances of it as he can find on Wikipedia.

He hides his behavior behind protestations that common era notation is not "reader-friendly," or is inconsiderate to international readers, or is unfamiliar to the average reader, or similar arguments. (Others have documented these arguments, so I won't duplicate their efforts here.) Of course, personal bias is indefensible on Wikipedia, while regard for the reader is laudable, so I am quite sure that Jguk uses the latter as a cover for the former. I have every confidence that my and others' evidence here will demonstrate that.

[edit] Meta-vandalism: What is it, and how has Jguk engaged in it?

I believe that my evidence documents systematic and systemic "meta-vandalism" of Wikipedia by Jguk. His claims of advocating for "reader-friendliness" are grounded in his user page, which states: "I strongly believe that articles should be written so they can be easily understood by as wide an audience as possible and edit in accordance with that belief."

Apparently, he believes that "easily understood" means "instantly understood." This is evident by his outrageous claim that if a reader encounters anything unfamiliar, he or she will "give up and go somewhere else." ([306] — See Jguk's comments of 20:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC).

But he cannot really think this; he obviously realizes that people won't necessarily "give up," but rather click on a link or do a Google search or do a search within Wikipedia itself. This is where meta-vandalism comes in.

Jguk clearly knows that at least some readers will come to the Common Era page to find out more about the BCE/CE notation they may encounter on Wikipedia. It is on this article that Jguk has squatted, has "policed," and has aggressively edited to match his own POV, chasing off many good-faith contributors in the process.

I call this behavior "meta-vandalism" because it affects every article on Wikipedia that uses the disputed notation. That's a lot of articles! So when people come to the Common Era page for explanation, they will at least get Jguk's preferred version of the dispute, since he can't always prevail on the many individual pages he incessantly reverts.

This meta-vandalism aggregates all the points that Jguk makes on multiple pages in just one place, the Common Era article, a presumptive source of authority on the matter. But since he can't win on every page, he tries to make the Common Era page be the yardstick by which all other pages on Wikipedia are judged.

His general points follow, and are detailed by supporting diffs separated into thematic sections. Please note that while some diffs are repeated, each one showcases a distinct theme. This reflects the fact that more than one concept may be introduced in within one editing session.

Jguk has also rejected several reasonable compromises, also documented below.

[edit] Documentation

Jguk's general (stated) objections to Common Era notation are that:

  • It is not widely known or used
  • It is "politically correct"
  • It is the same as the "Christian era" (this seems to be his true objection, and not his stated one of "reader-friendliness")

Jguk is especially tenacious on this third point, though I would wager if you asked any non-Christian if they were living in the Christian era, they'd say "no" 9 out of 10 times!

My evidence follows. The diffs in each section are listed in chronological order. I know some of these areas overlap slightly, but I believe they are distinct enough to warrant their own sections.

A. Common Era notation isn't well-known, popular, widely used, etc.

  • A.1. — obvious substantial change
  • A.2. — "But the usage is also popular among non-Christian religions [sic] people, especially among Jews" -> deletion by Jguk; had he bothered to confirm or refute his own POV, he would have found that the original statement is largely accurate, especially in regard to usage among Jews.
  • A.3. — See last line in Jguk's edit
  • A.4. — Jguk adds, "more commonly known"; "much more common"; "used synonymously"; "The term 'Christian era' has been around much longer and is much more prevalent than the alternative form 'common era'." The POV here is more than obvious.
  • A.5. — "increasingly" -> "not"
  • A.6. — "increasingly" -> "has not entered into general use" and "is not generally understood"
  • A.7. — "increasingly" -> "it has not entered into general use by the public"
  • A.8. — "more commonly known"



B. AD/BC is the most common notation (this is true, though irresponsibly overemphasized by Jguk)

  • B.1. — Lines 24 and 35
  • B.2. — Line 38: "There is no need to replace a term that everyone knows and understands, which is 'Before Christ'." This is also discussed below in section F; the wording here could possibly be defended in the context of this section, but it seems a rather transparent "tell" of Jguk's POV.
  • B.3. — Line 38: Jguk reverts to language of B.2. above.



C. Not even well-known or widely used in academia (arguable, but you'd be hard pressed to find any Ph.D. outside of mathematics or science who doesn't at least know what it is)

  • C.1. — "particularly popular in academic circles" -> "common in some academic circles"
  • C.2. — "This terminology is generally not understood outside of certain academic circles."
  • C.3 — Line 17 under "Usage": "Non-religious academics (have begun using CE/BCE)" -> "Some non-religious academics…"



D. China doesn't use CE notation universally (completely untrue)

  • D.1. — Wholesale deletion by Jguk
  • D.2. — Jguk reverts deletion
  • D.3. — Jguk reverts deletion

At this point, evidence is given on the talk page that supports the assertion that common era notation is universally used in China. Even Jguk cannot ignore the conclusiveness of this information, so he begins attacking this point using a different approach, saying that a translation of the term "common era" is used "in Chinese," not universally "in China." This subtle shift has two advantages: the first is that the change is factually correct; the second is that his edit hides the fact he dislikes by omission, not insertion. This way he cleverly hides a larger truth with a smaller one, and knows that at this point his repackaged POV will be viewed by the other Wikipedians he routinely exhausts as a magnanimous concession.

  • D.4. — "China" -> "Chinese"
  • D.5. — Jguk writes, "term has equivalents in other languages", reducing it to a question of translation rather than usage; alters sense of sentence by writing, "Chinese uses a translation of the term"



E. Common Era = Christian Era

  • E.1. — Line 1: adds "also known as the Christian Era"; edit summary: "noting that Common Era=Christian Era (as per most dictionaries)"
  • E.2. — Line 1: reverts back to his previous edit, "also known as the Christian Era"
  • E.3. — Line 1: Jguk reverts to and expands his POV, "more commonly known as the Christian Era"
  • E.4. — Line 1: Jguk reverts to "more commonly known as the Christian Era"
  • E.5. — Line 3: Jguk doesn't like "like"; edit summary states: "the Christian Era is the more common name for the Common Era - so the 'Common Era' is not like the 'Christian Era', they are one and the same"
  • E.6. — Line 3: again, Jguk doesn't like "like"; my edit summary states: "Rv last edit. Time isn't the point; nomenclature is, and I'm trying to clarify that both names cover the same time. What's 'more common' is irrelevant here, and is dealt with elsewhere in the article."; Jguk's edit summary states: "rv it's the word 'like' that I don't like;) Christian Era=Common Era - they are the same things"
  • E.7. — "synonymous with"
  • E.8. — Line 1, first sentence: "more commonly known as the Christian era"
  • E.9. — Line 1, third sentence: tries to claim that "Common era" was really Christian all along, something he has never before claimed, and which he presents no evidence to support: "Although 'Common Era' was a term first used by some Christians in an age when Christianity was the commonr [sic] religion, it is now a term preferred by some as a religiously neutral alternative." Jguk's edit in bold.



F. "Common era" is "politically correct"

  • F.1. — Jguk adds under the "Opposition" section that common era notation is "an example of political correctness." While the context of the section could possibly justify such blunt wording, his repeated edits in the same vein make his POV quite clear.
  • F.2. — Jguk adds under "Opposition", "It is a politically correct attempt to destroy our ordinary language by eliminating references to 'BC'." While here, as above, this kind of wording could possibly be defended in context, it still appears more blunt than necessary, especially as it appears to be a paraphrase and not a direct quote; such a tone in a direct quote could be defended, but not in a paraphrase.
  • F.3. — "partly because it uses culturally neutral terms" – the other part presumably being political correctness.
  • F.4. — Jguk reverts to his edit: "partly because it uses culturally neutral terms".



G. "Evidence" of minor significance (British schools, New South Wales legislature. Jguk presents political/governmental debates as evidence of authority, as they happen to be arguments he agrees with)

  • G.1.
  • G.2.
  • G.3. — See line 20 through "BBC's answer to Wikipedia". This last statement seems to be a way to discount the BBC site as an "anybody can edit this" kind of thing, and thus not authoritative (and thus implicitly supporting Jguk's POV).



Compromises

  • Compromise 1 — Line 16: my first edit under the "Opposition" heading, generally incorporating Jguk's valid point – perhaps his only one – that common era notation is not widely known or used by the public.
  • Compromise 2 in response to E.4. above — Line 1: my edit states "perfectly parallels".
  • Compromise 3 — This is User:Sunray's edit, and his reasonable compromise is obvious in this diff.
  • Compromise 4 — My edit states "directly coincides"; Jguk's revert makes the common era "synonymous" with the Christian era, a favorite POV, a fact documented in section E above.

Respectfully submitted,
dablaze 00:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Jguk_Evidence_ecc2.html"