Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Re: Proposed findings of fact: 3) Jguk's preference

Reference: Proposed findings of fact/Jguk's preference

Apologies for weighing in here before I've made my statement and presented my evidence -- I've only just learned about this arbitration and am still preparing my materials -- but arbitrator Fred Bauder has stated that:

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... (Emphasis added)

This is not completely correct: Jguk has changed BCE/CE to BC/AD in numerous cases even where consistent use existed throughout an article. This is, IMO, an extremely important point, and one of which I will soon be documenting with my evidence, if it has not already been documented by others.

–dablaze 04:07, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I get your point. I spent most of the day working on that case, but the findings are by no means complete. To help me could you give me a few diffs of edits that demonstrate your point? Fred Bauder 11:46, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Certainly. I'm planning to post my stuff tomorrow (Saturday) -- gotta pay the bills during the week. :) But this is my first involvement in an arbitration. Am I correct in assuming that posting to the Evidence page will suffice, or should I copy the relevant info to this talk page as well? –dablaze 21:47, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Post on Evidence only, please. Add a note here if you feel it's needed. --cesarb 21:57, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dablaze's comment has nothing to do with the present dispute, which started when Slrubenstein encouraged SouthernComfort to unilaterally change from BC/AD to BCE/CE, despite being quite aware of the offence that has been taken when changes such as that have been made (eg questions were asked in the New South Wales legislature when offence was taken by one instance of changing from BC to BCE in one exam paper question).

I am concerned at Fred's last finding - it seems he is about to argue that the ArbCom should overrule the community, which clearly rejected Slrubenstein's proposal. The ArbCom should not even be discussing content, let alone contradicting what the Wikipedia community has already decided on it.

I'm also concerned as to why Fred thinks it relevant which user name I used months and months ago - something that is clearly outside the scope of what the ArbCom case is about, jguk 21:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments to Fred

I have had the following discussion and made the following points to Fred on his talk page. I add them here so others have easy access to them, jguk 07:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing Fred?

Fred

I'm somewhat puzzled by what you're adding to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision. We have a vote for changing BC/AD to BCE/CE throughout WP that clearly fails. Some editors, despite that, unilaterally change some articles that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE. I (along with other editors) edit them back (as there was no basis for the change) - and you decide I am wrong and to be chastised, but those who made the unilateral edits to change an article that consistently used BC/AD to BCE/CE are acting perfectly properly. How is that fair or reasonable?!?!? Kind regards, jguk 22:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The proposed decision will develop further, but according to the manual of style both usages are acceptable. What is not acceptable is repeatedly reverting any article simply to make it conform to a particular style. Fred Bauder 22:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the person who goes around changing the status quo in the first place is the one in the wrong. To let them off scot free and then go after the person who reverts them strikes me as being somewhat bizarre. Ambi 02:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is SouthernComfort, egged on by Slrubenstein, who has been editing articles that were completely consistently using BC/AD so that they use BCE/CE - all I have been doing is reverting these changes because (and I agree with you here) it is not acceptable to change an article simply to make it conform to another style that you prefer. It is not me that has been initiating these changes! (There was one article, Elamite Empire, where I inadvertently did do this - as SouthernComfort was pretty making so many unilateral changes to articles, I made a mistake on this one. But on every other one you will see that before SC recently visited them, they always used BC/AD.)

You seem to be deciding the case on content, deciding you prefer SouthernComfort's content, and then concluding I have misbehaved because I have been stopping SouthernComfort's changes. ArbCom is meant to stay away from content, isn't it? I have also indicated on a number of occasions to SC that the act of changing from BC/AD to BCE/CE causes a lot of offence - and I have referred him to the outrage caused in New South Wales when this happened in one exam question, and led to questions being raised in both chambers of parliament and the minister backing down. SC has chosen to ignore this offence - if I am to be chastised on this for disagreeing with him, should he not also be chastised for disagreeing with me? jguk 22:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a distinction between changing an article and repeatedly reverting it.(Especially when you know very well that the other editor is offended by the usage). Fred Bauder 23:00, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

SC changed an article when he was fully aware Slrubenstein's proposal had failed and reverted time and time again to insert his preferred usage despite his being fully aware that I (and others) are offended by such deliberate changes). Why is my taking offence at his changes irrelevant? Where changes such as this happened in NSW it caused parliamentary questions, and the news that religious leaders in NSW were not actually offended by BC/AD usage (ie those who were making the changes were doing so on a false premise). Where similar changes have happened in the UK there have been angry letters to newspapers. The offence caused by SC's changes is real, yet you seem to say that is irrelevant, and we should instead concede to SC because he claims to be offended. You may, of course, not have been fully aware of this when you made your findings of fact. However, I should be grateful if you would reconsider whether your findings are really fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, jguk 23:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Either usage is acceptable according to Wikipedia's Manual of style. Taking offense at another user who is following the Wikipedia Manual of Style and selecting their preferred notation of era and then repeatedly reverting them is a violation of our policy which discourages edit warring. The failure of Slrubensein's proposal did not affect the manual of style nor did it remove the option for any editor to consider which notation of era is appropriate for a particular article. Taking the articles which relate to Persia where, as an example, as pointed out by User:SouthernComfort there is only minimal history of Chrisianity (and that by Christians to whom the usage AD was probably unheard of). There is some evidence that the theoretical offense postulated by those who advocate the common era usage in fact occurs as you may see by the comments of SouthernComfort on your own talk page, see User_talk:Jguk/Archive6#BC.2FAD_vs_BCE.2FCE. It is quite reasonable that the common era usage notation be used in articles which have no relationship, even an antagonistic relationship to Christianity. One might debate the issue, perhaps on the talk page of the articles in question, but there is no basis for repeated reversion, based on spurious reasoning with no foundation in Wikipedia policies. One takes one's victim as one finds him: if he is more sensitive to injury than he ought to be, he is nevertheless hurt. Fred Bauder 12:14, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Fred - you seem to have some argument but the wrong man. All those articles used BC/AD. SouthernComfort, egged on by Slrubenstein, systematically changed that on the articles he visited. He then reverted back to his preferred version.
To get to me, you have come to the conclusion that you will judge this on content and prefer SC's content. I have argued throughout that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity - and I have noted that articles on Persian subjects have (and most certainly when I was learning about them) always traditionally used BC/AD notation. If you argue that it is inappropriate to change an article to your preferred notation (when either is acceptable) and then to revert to maintain it, it is SC and Slr that you should be admonishing, not me! jguk 12:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunctions

Whilst I would have no temporary injunction against me changing BCE/CE notation to BC/AD notation where BC/AD notation was not established prior to this dispute (since 1 May, say) if a similar injunction is placed on others, I do not see why it should be one-sided. Shouldn't such a temporary injunction apply to all users that they should neither go about changing BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa for the duration (with penalties to apply, say, if they have been specifically warned about the injunction on their talk pages)? jguk 12:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has to do with the extent and intensity of your editing regarding this matter, see User:MPerel/Jguk's era-related edits. Our policy permits change from one notation to another but prohibits edit warring. Even while this dreary business proceeds you have continued aggressively reverting, often in articles where you have no other interest than patrolling to enforce your preference, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SouthernComfort. Fred Bauder 16:00, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
The other parties if they change notation are doing so in the articles which they regularly edit. Fred Bauder 16:06, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

That is a nonsense Fred - I have only been reverting changes in notation instigated by SC and others - had SC not been reverting aggressively back to his preferred notation recently (and whilst this case was ongoing) I would not have needed to revert him back. Logic dictates that my reverts must number (and must be as aggressive) as those of the people I disagree with, but you appear to be singling me out for approbation, jguk 17:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"...I would not have needed to revert him back." What is this need? Fred Bauder 17:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Failed proposals should not be implemented. If we allow them to be implemented we disrespect the views of those that meant the proposal fail. You might as well ask SC why he feels he needs to keep trying to impose his changes in style when the Manual of Style makes it quite clear that the style that those articles already had is quite acceptable, jguk 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jguk, please try to consider the possibility that their actions have nothing to do with SLR's failed proposal, but are rather based on currently accepted policy. The decision to use CE or AD is similar to the decision to use BE or AE spelling, at least as far as our Manual of Style is concerned. So, capricious changes from one option to another are discouraged, but there is no requirement to stick eternally to the original author's choice - that's just a fallback in the case that the authors of the article can't agree on a sensible criterion to decide which option to use. If it were otherwise, United Kingdom would still use American spelling (as somebody pointed out). Zocky 02:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is ridiculous

These proposed findings are utterly ridiculous. They are as one-sided as could be believed possible. I fail to see how the arbitrators can find so much more wrong with jguk's actions than with slr's or SC's. No-one has behaved well, here. Nevertheless, these proposed findings are completely unfair. As can be seen from his user page, jguk has been driven away from Wikipedia by, in part, this committee's failure to see the issues that he had. If the committee cannot understand and note for the record the others' failings, they must be blind or incompetant. I don't know which is worse. FoF 2 is clearly and blatantly an attempt to do down jguk. This page has played its part in driving off one of the encyclopedia's finest contributors. I hope you're happy, Fred. smoddy 21:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed remedy

I must weigh in on this (FYI, I have also recently weighed in on the Evidence page).

I have been clashing with Jguk on this issue since November 2004 -- in a way I tried to keep as reasonable and accommodating as the situation permitted -- and I believe that a strong remedy is called for here. I am dismayed to see the vote going against the Limitation on editing by Jguk. Perhaps a year may be too harsh (though I don't think so), but I believe six months at the very least is not.

When another user and I participated in a failed Request for Mediation with Jguk. This prompted him to stay away for about six weeks, from April 5 to May 27 (check the Common Era history page). But by May 27 he apparently figured that the heat was off and he resumed his usual disruptive behavior.

I urge the Committee to consider a sufficiently strong remedy to Jguk's continued aggressive and disruptive behavior.

—dablaze 01:38, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would also add that in those six weeks, a great deal of useful and informative new edits were contributed to the page, both by new and previously chased-away editors, once Jguk had ceased his squatting. (The Common Era history page reflects this.) And once he returned, so did the unproductive and stagnant squabbling that marks his efforts.
—dablaze 01:43, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I agree the Jguk's campaign should be limited if he returns. I ask anyone who disagrees to look at the evidence.
Disclosure: I have not been involved in this dispute, but in others with Jguk. He does make valued contributions at times. At other times, and with some issues, he is overly aggressive and noncooperative. Maurreen 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] One-sided injunction

I'm not fully up to speed with the details of this dispute (and have no desire to poke into the edit histories of the articles in dispute) but the proposed injunction seems somewhat bizarre - it takes two to edit/revert war. Just because it is mainly jguk reinstating BC/AD versus a bunch of people supporting a move to BCE/CE, does that make his reverts any more culpable than the others? The weight of Wiki opinion, expressed in the policy vote, was against wholesale movement to BCE/CE - why should it be acceptable to allow the same result to be achieved piecemeal? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With respect, ALoan, if you're not up to speed with the dispute and have not examined the edit histories involved, then perhaps you might consider doing so before offering your opinion in this case.
I see from your user page that you are a UK Wikipedian who, like Jguk, frequently contibutes to cricket-themed pages. To his credit, Jguk seems to contribute geniuinely useful and collaborative edits within that subject area. I assure you that in other areas, like BCE/CE, he does not.
If this case has distressed cricket fans on Wikipedia, I don't know what to tell you. Lord knows we need as many people as possible to explain that game. :) But in this case, Jguk's behavior is, well, simply not cricket. –dablaze 14:12, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
After reviewing the edit histories at length I proposed the injunction based on Jguk's editing patterns. In most instances his only edit to the articles was to change the era notation which was followed by reversions if the regular editors of the article changed it back. The other parties are simply editing the articles they usually edit and making editorial judgments which are acceptable under current style guidelines. Fred Bauder 14:14, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, dablaze, but the fact that ALoan is from the UK and likes cricket is totally unrelated to his opinion here. He's well aware of the way this place works and is more than free to express his view. Indeed, it's interesting to see how it looks to someone that has had very little involvement. You clearly have the opinion that jguk has acted improperly, but to claim that he did and that others did not is simply blinkered.
He shouldn't edit war, no, but neither should others. The current policy is too vague and, were it tightened, the situation would not be allowed to happen. Wikipedia:Eras is still an ongoing effort to do this, and any ruling made here may well become unnecessary if the policy explicitly states how AD/CE changes may (or may not) occur. I encourage people to discuss it there. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
violet, I'm not saying ALoan doesn't have the right to express his opinion here; I'm just saying that if he hasn't looked into any of the evidence in the case, I don't think his opinion shouldn't carry much weight in a formal arbitration.
I'm also not dumping on him for being a British cricket fan, as Jguk also apparently is. What I am saying is that he's probably had a much different interaction with Jguk -- from all accounts a collegial one -- on Wikipedia's cricket pages than those of us who have struggled with him for months over his BC/AD edit-warring. This marked difference in interactions, IMO, also reduces the weight of his opinion in this matter. But by no means do I dispute his right to express it.
Also, I have not been involved in the debacle with Jguk, Slrubenstein and others. I have made the extent of my involvement clear on the Evidence page.
Moreover, even if others behaved wrongly, which they may have, that doesn't necessarily make Jguk's behavior right. In fact, if you'll go back and attentively read what I have written here and elsewhere in this arbitration, you'll realize that I have never defended Jguk's accusers, much less even mentioned them. So to call me "blinkered" in this regard is simply not accurate.
As for the policy under question, do some more careful reading -- I haven't even mentioned it, nor is this case about Wikipedia policy, but about Jguk's behavior. Again, even if the policy is vague doesn't necessarily excuse Jguk's actions, which is the only thing this case is about. You want to change the policy? Fine then. Change it. You think Jguk's accusers have acted improperly? Fine. Take them to dispute resolution. Both of those issues fall outside the scope of this case, however.
I don't mind criticism, violet. Just please base it on what I've actually said.
—dablaze 17:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
It is perfectly reasonable to base it on what you haven't said, as well as what you have. You say "Moreover, even if others behaved wrongly, which they may have, that doesn't necessarily make Jguk's behavior right." I would agree, but emphasise that other users have edit-warred as well. They were in the wrong for edit-warring. They deserve punishment or sanctions in the same way as jguk. This is the point ALoan made, this is the point violet/riga made, and this is the point I made. I don't think anyone protested jguk's innocence, but the ArbComm are doing a good job of protesting the innocence of everyone else. smoddy 17:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your reply to me is as inappropriate as your reply to ALoan. You say that I should "attentively read" yet seem to have done exactly what you accuse me of doing. I did not say you were "blinkered", that you mentioned policies or accuse you of any of the things you seem to think I said. I was commenting on the situation, and my criticism of you is simply that your mentioning of ALoan being a cricket-enjoying UK Wikipedian is irrelevant to the matter. It also seems odd that you are trying to downplay the "weight of his opinion" in a matter solely decided by the ArbComm. violet/riga (t) 17:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I said just a few minutes ago, smoddy, this case is about Jguk's behavior. If Jguk had bothered to avail himself of the dispute resolution process against the others in this case instead of the other way around, the focus would be on their behavior, not his. But instead of acting in a spirit of community and cooperation, he continued his months-long, unilateral POV-pushing. And now his behavior is the focus. Rightly so, IMO.
(On a side note, you have obviously failed to notice that one of Jguk's accusers will likely be admonished for edit-warring. So this is not as one-sided as you think -- or have bothered to find out.)
If the others are at fault, anyone involved could have begun dispute resolution against them. They still can. Does this apply to you? If so, then go for it. If not, then your two-wrongs-make-a-right argument is irrelevant here. —dablaze 17:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration is not about jguk's behaviour alone, but by all the parties in the case. This isn't a prosecution, but an arbitration. I am perfectly aware of the proposed sanctioning of SC for edit-warring. I am not as careless or as biased as you may believe. But the injunction being solely against jguk? That is wholly biased, and completely unjustified. Revert-warring is wrong. Full stop. Yes, jguk did revert-war, and he deserved the injunction, and deserved to be admonished. However, other users, including but not limited to SC, also revert warred. The ArbComm's judgment was very much biased. Arbitration should almost always be listed as [user] v. [user] to be fair to both sides and reflect that it is not a prosecution. The injunction (see section title) was very anti-jguk, and unnecessarily lenient on the others who had revert-warred. smoddy 18:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see what's so inappropriate about dablaze's response to ALoan. ALoan, by his own admission, mentioned that he hasn't examined the case in detail, so what is so interesting about a self professed outsider's opinion on a matter that he hasn't looked into? srs 18:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because there are people with blatant biases writing things on this talk page. It's also good to have someone come along that knows about disputes and can offer their opinion without going along with one of those biases. violet/riga (t) 19:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Huh? It would be one thing for someone to come along and give their opinion after catching up on what the dispute actually entails, it's something else entirely to proffer an opinion when you self admittedly are not "fully up to speed with the details of the dispute". To offer a well thought out opinion, one should at least know what they're giving an opinion on, should they not? You seem to be equating ignorance with unbiased. srs 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
He clearly knows something about the topic and, from his point of view, thinks it is currently "one-sided". He doesn't need to know every detail for that. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, on the topic of biases, it might be appropriate to note that indeed ALoan might have come from the Cricket portal, or from Jguk's user page where there is a rather one sided version of events, along with claims of persecution, and this plus ALoan's admission of not being fully aware of the details of this case might result in a biased perception of events, instead of an unbiased opinion as you would claim. srs 19:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It might do, but I don't think it does. violet/riga (t) 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This case is about User:Jguk's eight month history of enforcing his favored style over others. It is interesting to note how his defenders first claim that its all a conspiracy by User:Slrubenstein, then how his actions are equivalent to others, and now, failing that, how it's all User:Fred Bauders fault. The simple fact is that Jguk's actions do not compare to the actions of others, neither in scope nor scale, and equating his actions to others is very misleading, whether intentional or not. It should also be noted that the edit war primarily stopped as a result of the others standing down and allowing Jguk to have his way for the time being, as these series of particularly comical edits illustrate: [1] [2], so an injunction against Jguk is entirely appropriate. srs 18:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not "defending" jguk. I am merely stating that others are culpable as well. The scope is not as large, admittedly, but that is because they were acting in tandem. Why do I think Fred Bauder did badly wrong? Because his series of heavily biased proposed findings and remedies caused one of WP's best editors to leave. I don't believe in a conspiracy by slr, but I do believe in fairness. The ArbComm has so far failed to offer that, although later changes are a dramatic improvement. I am agreeing fully that there was a "one-sided injunction" (see section heading) and am explaining that fully. smoddy 18:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not to comment on whether it is one-sided or not, I must note the following Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter:
  • Accept: Not to judge the actions of either party in particular but to consider the issue of consensus and disputed style changes. Neutrality
  • Accept (to look into issues of who's been doing things unilaterally, as opposed to issues of policy. Ambi
That clearly states that members of the ArbComm will be looking at this as a case about the situation and not just jguk, as they do so with other cases. Fred Bauder is free to add votes to the proposed decision page in the way he feels appropriate, dealing with the situation as he thinks it should be done. Other ArbComm members are free to do the same to "balance it out" (that is, add proposals related to any other party should they feel it necessary to do so) and I have full confidence that they will deal with the case correctly. violet/riga (t) 18:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I believe very much that the case will eventually be heard fairly. I still protest at the horrendous unfairness of the injunction, which has directly caused jguk to leave Wikipedia. That is my protest, and I fully believe it is a valid one. smoddy 20:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What an interesting discussion. I thought I would let it cool down before responding. Just to address a few of the points above:
  • I will express an opinion on anything I like;
  • my opinion worth is exactly as much as you have paid for it;
  • I have my own biases, but then I am not on the arbcom and am not obliged to be impartial (I hope everyone else recognises that they may not be entirely impartial too?);
  • I am not defending jguk, simply pointing out the temporary injunction seems pretty one-sided to me;
  • smoddy pretty much hits the nail on the head: this is an arbitration of a situation involving a dispute, not a prosecution of one party to the dispute; neither side in this dispute has covered themselves with glory, which is why the one-sided nature of the injunction look off to me. I am glad that the evolving proposals for final resolution seem to be addressing these concerns. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This decision is odious

This decision in its current form represents a blatant and gross hatchet job. In particular, apart from what others have commented on, the implication that whatever SouthernComfort takes personal offence at should govern other users' editing is a deeply divisive one that POV pushers will cite in the future and that will drive away many good contributors. Fred, I urge you personally to reconsider you position as an arbitrator. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I was somewhat surprised to see it proposed that editors should take into consideration what people find offensive, at least to such a degree as this. It could easily be countered by people claiming to have been offended by the change away from BC/AD ("You're stamping on my religion" or whatever). violet/riga (t) 18:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. I find the whole CE/BCE thing seriously offensive - and before anyone wastes electrons, I am neither i) Christian, ii) living in the UK, or iii) have anything to do with cricket articles. I despise it because it's Politically Correct drivel, a futile attempt to paper over the source of the numbering system - which remains the same, no matter what contrived label is applied to it. Noel (talk) 03:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also agree with this - it could just have easily applied to both sides in this, and Jguk had made a case for the reverse. Ambi 21:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then he should have made his case through the dispute resolution process instead of vandalism. —dablaze 21:19, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
And that applies to both sides too! violet/riga (t) 21:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I said earlier, anyone on the business end of the "other side's" possible improper actions is free to initiate dispute resolution against them. (I was involved on the Common Era side of things, not the policy debate, so that's why I haven't taken my own advice on this.) But it seems a lot of outside commenters think that Jguk's accusers should be taken to dispute resolution, though no one with any direct involvement has yet done so. Interesting, no? —dablaze 21:33, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
Or they're just saying that both parties should've initiated such proceedings. violet/riga (t) 21:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or they (i.e. me) are noting that arbitration is between parties, not against parties, except in very clear cut circumstances (violet/riga and myself against Irate was one such example). smoddy 21:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hope you're all happy. We've lost a good editor in jguk over this nonsense. Please note that he was reverting changes made by Southern Comfort at the encouragement of Slrubenstein, when there was no particular standard and jguk was converting to a standard. SouthernComfort is the one at fault here, and, ultimately, Slrubenstein is the instigator of the whole problem, and yet SouthernComfort and Slrubenstein get off with nothing and jguk gets attacked, censured, and forced off the project. RickK 20:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

And the following comment above is particularly bizarre: I think there is a distinction between changing an article and repeatedly reverting it.(Especially when you know very well that the other editor is offended by the usage. So does that mean that if any vandal comes along and moves Mecca to al-Makkah or Kiev to Kyiv and we move it back because they've violated consensus, the person who moves it back is at fault if the vandal claims they are offended by the usage? Since when did an individual's claimed offense override consensus? RickK 20:27, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus that AD-BC is preferred. Jguk was expressing a personal preference without support in Wikipedia policy. Fred Bauder 20:53, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
And how are SC and slr's actions any different on the majority of pages? smoddy 21:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In SC's case, it seems fairly clear to me that in the cases involved, it was the consensus of the editors working on that article to use BCE-CE, which really means Jguk has no business going around and changing it, which is why I changed my original votes. However, I'm not so sure about Slrubenstein's role in this - he seems to have been egging SC on and trying to cause trouble, which is indeed a Bad Thing. Ambi 03:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that your assessment is correct. There was consensus of the editors working on the article and Jguk was acting outside of Wikipedia policy in reverting SC's changes. As to Slrubenstein egging SC on, it seems clear to me that he was simply reassuring SC that what he had done was in accordance with policy. Sunray 07:42, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
Let me adjust that last sentence slightly: [Slr was] reassuring SC that what he had done was in his view in accordance with policy. I should like to add that while I also held that view at that time, I do agree with ArbCom's admonishment about using the dispute resolution process. Sunray 16:39, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)

[edit] Question to David Gerard

Hi, David. You have argued that B/CE "has recently come to be preferred among certain portions of US academia," hinting that it is largely limited to it, pointing out that otherwise, outside U.S. academia, this increasing preference is negligable. Although my findings did cite: international/non-US sources such as ifla.org and yorku.ca, it was a very incomplete survey (though, indeed, featuring mostly sources from US academia). I was wandering, then, for my own interest having involved myself in this debate, on what evidence your position is based on (conclusively?) that it is largely limited to the US. Thank you in advance for taking the time. Yours, El_C 04:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The significance of ArbCom's final decision

The Arbitration Committee has sifted through a great deal of information related to this case. Although many editors have presented evidence, that of MPerel stands out in showing the magnitude of the problem caused by Jguk’s campaign to eradicate BCE/CE from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, the facts of this case are relatively simple and the ArbCom’s decisions thus far show a clear understanding of those facts.

I could be mistaken, but the case seems to have stalled. I’m not sure whether Jguk’s departure has anything to do with this, but don’t see why it should. Many of us editors have left at some point. It is part of Wikipedia life. We become too involved at times and have to gain some distance and (hopefully) perspective.

Whether or not Jguk returns, closure on this case is very important, in my view. There is a need to determine whether Wikipedia guidelines such as the Manual of Style guidelines for eras and consensus are simply too weak to be of use to editors with divergent points of view. More importantly, are policies such as NPOV, civility and assume good faith merely high-minded nostrums or are they actual enforceable policies? This case puts current policy to the test. Is our policy framework effective in a case such as this or do we need to expand the rulebook? I believe that the Arbitration Committee's final deliberations will be most important in helping respond to this. Sunray 06:57, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

This case is definitely stalled and most arbitrators do not support the proposed decisions, in view of the feedback from a few vocal users. Most of them want to start over. However I believe my proposals to be sound and based on the facts of the case. Fred Bauder 14:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Fred your proposals are right on. Jguk has made many valuable contributions, but it doesn't exempt him from following Wikipedia policy. It's unfortunate that he'd rather stomp off instead of agree to play by simple rules everyone else has to follow. The fact that he would rather leave the project over this makes me skeptical that he would adhere to a simple "admonishment" should he decide to return. And I do hope (and predict) he will decide to return like most seem to do, but he should be limited from making era-related edits, since it is an area in which he has demonstrated stubborn refusal to edit in a reasonable fashion. Style issues in general do not appear to be his bailiwick, or at least not when it comes to working with other editors. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
MPerel, if you try reading, you will see that the ArbComm case is just one of the factors that have caused jguk to leave. He left because "it was no longer fun". And, while he was certainly going over the top with his actions, none of the participants of this affair have conducted themselves with any grace whatsoever, your good self included. The fact that users reverted together against him does not exonerate him. The new decisions are balanced and fair, IMO. smoddy 19:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please clarify what you mean by "none of the participants of this affair have conducted themselves with any grace whatsoever, your good self included" --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Certainly. Both sides had wholly valid POVs, and both completely ignored the validity of the other's. Gracious editing would have involved recognising other's legitimate viewpoints and discussing them to get a good encyclopedia. No-one has come out of this affair looking good, including the arbitrators (though, to me, they have certainly exonerated themselves with what will be a good decision). smoddy 20:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think lumping all parties (and not even by name) as equally culpable is ambiguous and accomplishes nothing. I signed on to this case because I observed one editor, Jguk, ignoring policy having aggressively changed 700 different articles to a style he preferred, on his way to systematically changing all of Wikipedia to his preference. And it appears he will continue with the same behavior if he ever returns since he feels he did no wrong. No one else from *any* POV did and continued to do what Jguk was doing. For that reason, I have to disagree with you that this case is simply about "Both sides had wholly valid POVs, and both completely ignored the validity of the other's". Btw, I'd be sincerely interested in where exactly you believe *I've* "completely ignored the validity of the other's valid POVs". --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 21:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I apologise if I have missed something, but I have not seen particular evidence of this. If I am wrong, I apologise. Is it an invalid POV to suggest that all articles be BC/AD? You may not agree with it (indeed, neither do I), but that is not to say that it is invalid. jguk failed to be civil (as did pretty much everyone else), and revert-warred (as did pretty much everyone else). The only real difference is in the scale. He went about his actions in the wrong way. As did everyone else. From what I can see (which may not be everything) you did not approach jguk to suggest he stop or anything of that sort. That would have been perfectly good behaviour. I see that you are mainly a peripharal member of this dispute, so I guess your not doing so is more acceptable. smoddy 21:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Agreed that it's certainly valid to make the suggestion (that all articles be BC/AD or vice versa), but that's not what this case was about, or at least not why I am involved. Like you mention, the difference is in scale, and that for me is the main issue at hand. In fact I fear this point is getting lost due to the POV debate in question. Making massive edits (over a thousand) to 700 articles to push a particular POV style at the expense of another valid style is/was the behavior that needs to be addressed (I gave the link in the Evidence and above to all these edits that were done). In fact, apparently an anon just yesterday has taken up Jguk's cause where he left off and has changed about 300 articles from BCE/CE to BC/AD. Wikipedians have not agreed to changing era style on a large scale, one way or the other, so these massive edits (and editors who insist on making them) should be proscribed. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not invalid to have the POV that all articles should be BC/AD, but it certainly is invalid to edit 700 different articles in an attempt to enforce that POV. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess that is the point where I have to differ. It isn't right to do so, and it's probably a bit stupid. jguk should have known that conflict was the only outcome. Nevertheless, he did nothing wrong by policy, only a failure of civilty which has been shown equally by both sides. smoddy 22:20, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With respect, Smoddy, you are mistaken when you describe the situation as "...a failure of civility which has been shown equally by both sides." Several editors spent months trying to reason with Jguk about BCE/CE notation. Time and time again he refused to abide by consensus. Even during the so-called revert war there were several attempts to discuss matters with him on talk pages. He rarely participated and when he did, it was only to say something like "think of our readers" or "use a date notation that our readers will understand." Sunray 07:12, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The significance of ArbCom's final decision is to place a warning of bias louder than any “neutrality disputed” template on Wikipedia. Jguk’s crime was to defend the integrity of WP; to have an encyclopaedia to inform the reader, rather than a platform for editors who have their own Newspeak. It has been Jguk’s misfortune. It should serve as a warning to potential editors (such as yours truly) --ClemMcGann 13:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed principle

I'd like to propose the following principle as something that might want to be considered in this case:

At times the proper execution of Wikipedia's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these instances, a lengthy dispute is likely to ensue, and 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.

Snowspinner 19:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I concur – this sums up the problems that the ArbComm have had here perfectly. smoddy 19:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nice one. Added (minus the bit about edit wars, which I bet some idjits would take as permission) - David Gerard 19:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry allegation

Last night, Fred added FoF 9, headed "Sockpuppet". It is clearly insinuated that 195.40.200.222 is Jguk editing logged out, but no evidence has been offered of this. Without such evidence, this clearly constitutes a personal attack from within the Arbcom. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 07:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I think you clearly misunderstand what the meaning of a personal attack is. Calling someone's mother fat is a personal attack; accusing someone of using/being a sockpuppet is not. →Raul654 08:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I think I would feel personally attacked if someone called me a sockpuppet, or falsely accused me of using a sockpuppet. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:30, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have found no evidence that Jguk is the anonymous editor, but the emergence of the anonymous editor is relevant to the decision, in this case, indecision. Fred Bauder 14:19, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abstentions

I'd like to ask for the arbitrators' rationale for abstentions in the findings of facts. Thanks. Maurreen 10:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems that one of the arbitrators lost context for others' votes when he went away. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because they're unnecessary. Ambi 11:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be helpful if one withdrawing from participation would strikethrough rather than blank the prior contributions. As it stands, reading the page there are votes like, "Concur with Grunt", which makes no sense now that Grunt's reasoning is gone ... --Tabor 19:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of the finding of fact are my work. After Jguk quit Wikipedia and made a big fuss there was a focus of attention on finding of fact 6 Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jguk/Proposed_decision#Use_of_.22CE.22_and_.22BCE.22 which was considered a very bad, even "stupid" finding. Ambi wanted to start over with a blank page, but thwarted with that has abstained. So a mini war among the arbitrators. Fred Bauder 22:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a war; merely a disagreement between reasonable people who, I should mention, have done nothing besides voting against/abstaining on each other's proposals and discussing them. →Raul654 22:41, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Jguk_Proposed_decision_9b48.html"