Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2/Evidence

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:.

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 analyse 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.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.

Request for temporary injunction against Sortan
As noted below, User:Sortan, who has been a major flame in this whole escapade is a role account used by an established, prolific, but unidentified WP. As such Sortan is effectively immune from ArbCom action. It does not seem fair to allow one WPian to issue detailed charges against another, and yet hide in anonymity (by which I mean his other WP accounts, not his real name). I request that the Sortan account is blocked until it reveals its other WP names, so that a full assessment of Sortan's role in this dispute can be made.

No specific date

 * The Manual of Style states (amongst other things):

Eras
Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the Common Era, but when events span the start of the Common Era, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, 1 BC–1|AD 1 or 1 BCE–1|1 CE.

In articles about prehistory, if you use BP (before present) or MYA (million years ago), expand these abbreviations when you first use them, as most readers will be unfamiliar with them.

15 May 2005
Slrubenstein makes a policy proposal. Policy proposals require consensus (not a bare majority) in order to pass. The policy proposal was easily rejected with 103 opposing it, and 89 in support. The wording of the failed proposal was as follows:


 * I [Slrubenstein] want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC ("Before Christ") and AD ("Anno Domini", "In the year of the Lord") represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I [Slrubenstein] argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE (Before the Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead.

17 May 2005
A number of alternative proposals are put forward, but none of them went anywhere.

30 June 2005

 * ArbCom made the following rulings :

Style guide
1) Wikipedia has established a Manual of Style for the "purpose of making things easy to read by following a consistent format," see . The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding, but it is suggested that with respect to eras that "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article.".


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Optional styles
2) When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to English spelling as opposed to American spelling it would be acceptable to change from American spelling to English spelling if the article concerned an English subject. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article is colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles as both are acceptable.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Courtesy
3) Courtesy between Wikipedia editors is important, especially with respect to matters which are in dispute.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Revert wars considered harmful
4) Revert wars are usually considered harmful, because they cause ill-will between users and negatively destabilize articles. Users are encourage to explore alternate methods of dispute resolution, such as negotiation, surveys, requests for comment, mediation, or arbitration.


 * ''Passed 6 to 0 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

Sincere disputes are unlikely to be resolved by forcing the issue
5) At times the proper implementation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy will be a matter of dispute between reasonable editors who sincerely wish to uphold the principle. In these cases, 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.


 * ''Passed 4 to 1 at 30 June 2005 15:33 (UTC)

15 July 2005
After the ArbCom decision there was another attempt to reach consensus on Eras/Compromise proposal/Voting. It was proposed to change policy to add four sentences. There was no real voting on the first one, but the other sentences were voted on. As none of the proposals enjoyed even a majority, let alone consensus, they all failed. The sentences were:


 * 1. The use of one era style over another can often be controversial. (not voted on)
 * 2. In articles concerning non-Christian religious topics (for example, Gautama Buddha) BCE/CE should generally be favored over BC/AD. (rejected by a majority of 24 to 19).
 * 3. In articles concerning Jesus as a religious figure, BC/AD should be favored. (rejected by a majority of 20 to 15)
 * 4. In all other contexts,] consensus should be built before making any changes to the existing article style. (voting tied at 18 all)

Summary to date
So at this stage we are left with WP policy effectively being that either BCE or BC notation are permissible, but don't go changing articles that are stable in using one or other style. The idea that we should take account of whether an article has a religious subject in deciding which notation is used had been explicitly rejected by a fair margin.

Indeed, the community is cleared divided and it is unlikely that any proposal would pass.

18 October 2005
Fred arbitrated on the original ArbCom decision and is well aware of the bitterness it caused. He is also aware that his initial posting of his findings and proposals received a lot of debate (and no doubt caused much more division than he would have anticipated). He is also aware that his original findings were substantially changed by his fellow ArbCom members, who disagreed with him. [That in itself is not a problem, clearly not every decision will be unanimous, all arbitrators are likely to get outvoted from time to time]

The ArbCom's attention was drawn to the above-mentioned decisions of the community in a request for clarification that I hoped would end this dispute quickly (see ). The first Arbitrator to comment on the request for clarification was James F., who confirmed that the ArbCom's decision in the earlier case really did mean that there should be no changes in date notation.

Fred then made this comment:


 * Changing from AD-BC to Common Era notation is justified in situations which predate or are unrelated to Christian matters or Western civilization. Such considerations are a substantial reason. Jguk was warned to comply with Wikipedia policy and has continued to violate it. Fred Bauder 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In doing so, Fred must have known he was explicitly and openly disagreeing with a fellow Arbitrator on an issue in which he had previously been outvoted. His decision would also essentially put WP in the position it would have been in had the Slrubenstein proposal passed. Saying that "Changing from AD-BC to Common Era notation is justified in situations which predate or are unrelated to Christian matters or Western civilization" would mean that any change from BC to BCE notation in any article is justified (since all such years pre-date Christianity, which did not start until around the year 30 or later, and all pre-date the Western civilisation, which I think dates from around the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries). As the only articles related to Christian matters will deal with dates wholly within the last 2,000 years, there would never be a need to use AD either.

This decision therefore flies in the face of what the Manual of Style states (which is that BC/AD notation is permitted), the result of the community-wide vote on the Slrubenstein proposal, the results of the community-wide votes on the Compromise Proposal and is not a reasonable interpretation of the previous ArbCom decision. It is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have made it.

Case against Sortan
Sortan is a sockpuppet role account, mostly used for edits relating to date notation (see ). Sockpuppet and other ArbCom decisions make clear that whilst having multiple accounts is permitted, sockpuppet accounts should not be used to be disruptive and evade responsibility for edits. It is asserted that the Sortan account is an abusive sockpuppet account of an unknown, but prolific, WP user.

Evidence of sockpuppetry
dab raises his suspicions of Sortan being a role account. 

Later User:David Gerard performed a sockpuppet check, but it only showed up that the as yet unused User:James R account was attributable to the same ip.

The account first edited on 20 May 2005, and made its first date notation edits on 22 and 23 May to the Jesus article. The account was then silent until 8 July, where it joined in a dispute on Talk:Elam. I may have slightly miscounted, but approximately 272 of the account's 443 edits relate to date notation.

The comments used in edit summaries often tend to be abusive and constitute personal attacks (this is just a very small selection):


 * (AD 6 CE???? are you serious?) (note also on this diff [[User:Trodel]'s suspicions of sockpuppetry
 * (rv petty vandalism)
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yuezhi&diff=prev&oldid=21504797 (rv vandal)
 * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheese&diff=prev&oldid=23322377 (rv Jguk vandalism)
 * (BC v. BCE - don't vandalize other's comments) - made on the occasion of an obvious unintended glitch
 * (rv date vandal) This edit prompted User:Mark Gallagher to revert Sortan with the comment "rv on principle - "date vandal"? Gimme a break!"
 * (rv date vandal)
 * (rv troll/vandal)
 * (rv troll. stop changing spelling and date styles) Sortan's edits on this article prompted User:Kelly Martin to comment on Sortan's habit of stalking me . There are other examples too.
 * (rv date vandal)

Sortan has refused to reveal his other usernames.

Case against Humus sapiens
'''My contributions in November will be somewhat limited - real-life intervenes! I will write this up in December. Essentially this will include a summary of Humus sapiens's personal attacks, intransigence and refusal to do anything other than escalate this dispute. This will take some time to put together in a coherent order - and my being called away on a month-long project will mean I am unable to do this until that project is over.'''

Case against CDThieme

 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.


 * What happened.
 * What happened.

Hanukkah
Jguk never edited this article before - not that anything wrong with that, but he attempts to make stick his favorite era style, even though it has been pointed out to him repeatedly that BC/AD style is inappropriate here. This article traditionally uses BCE/CE (as almost all articles deeply related to Jewish history and religion do). Despite of his own insistence on the style change, in the background of this ordeal Jguk insists on ""no changes". No get outs - just no changes" 17:15, October 13, 2005 and "ArbCom really did mean "no changes". Full stop." 14:56, October 13, 2005 and uses the same argument in some of his summaries.

5 October 2005

 * 18:24, October 5, 2005 - An anon silently changes BCE/CE to BC/AD


 * 20:20, October 5, 2005 - Humus sapiens assumes good faith and reverts the edit RV User:216.15.60.106's Christian-centric BC/AD to denominationally neutral BCE/CE.

8 October 2005

 * 03:22, October 9, 2005 - Jguk reverts the date style changes to BC/AD but doesn't make it clear he's reverting: adjusting out Humus Sapiens's change


 * 03:30, October 9, 2005 - Humus sapiens reverts with explanation: RV Jguk's Christian-centric BC/AD to denominationally neutral and commonly accepted BCE/CE

14 October 2005

 * 00:03, October 15, 2005 - Jguk reverts using misleading summary: as per discussions with HS elsewhere

15 October 2005

 * 22:52, October 15, 2005 - Humus sapiens reverts: RV Jguk date notation change.


 * 02:42, October 16, 2005 - Jguk reverts using misleading summary: humus, you have been informed that WP has a "no change of date styles" policy, and that this was endorsed by ArbCom - I know you disagree with the decision, but please respect it all the same

16 October 2005

 * 05:18, October 16, 2005 - Humus sapiens reverts: RV Jguk's unjustified date notation change


 * 00:02, October 17, 2005 - Another user writes on the talk page: I'm getting real tired of the BC<->BCE changes. As of the end of 2003, Hanukkah used BCE; since standard Wikipedia policy is stay with the original usage, I will assist in reverting any changes away from that back to that.
 * Jguk bails out.

Hebrew calendar
Another article that Jguk never edited before, and again, Jguk's insistence on "no changes" means no changes from his preferred style. As of October 6, 2005, the article has inconsistencies in era style. A constructive and polite discussion is going on at Talk:Hebrew calendar. On October 7, 2005, User:66.157.233.48 makes it more consistent with BC/AD style: 21:26, October 7, 2005, assisted by squell: 21:28, October 8, 2005. All in good faith, I believe.

On the talk page, Joe Kress, Jfdwolff, squell, RachelBrown all agree that BCE/CE should be preferred style here. Humus sapiens concurs: 18:24, October 12, 2005: "Earlier, there were inconsistencies within this article (using BC/AD notation in some cases while BCE/CE in others), now it has been converted into BC/AD. I welcome consistency but agree with several editors that denominationally neutral BCE/CE notation and therefore is more appropriate here than Christian-centric BC/AD. In my view, the subject constitutes a "substantial reason" for BCE/CE which is commonly acceptable and is used in practically all articles related to Jewish history & religion. Objections?"

12 October 2005

 * 19:12, October 12, 2005 - Jguk appears (which is perfectly fine, but he seems to follow me around WP lately) to argue for his preferred style: "The ArbCom ruling essentially means "no changes to date styles" (and I have confirmed this with an Arbitrator), so this page should stay using BC/AD notation."
 * In the next few days, the discussion is joined by ArnoldReinhold, Sortan, Kaisershatner. A clear consensus develops, with the sole exception of Jguk who gives various (sometimes conflicting) reasons to use BC/AD.

15 October 2005

 * 01:58, October 16, 2005 - Humus sapiens makes several distinctive changes, explains in the edit summary: 1) Changed BC/AD >> BCE/CE as per talk, 2) prettytables, 3) wkln, 4) replaced dup table of months with a ref


 * 02:41, October 16, 2005 - Jguk's first edit. He changes era style only: humus, you have been informed that WP has a "no change of date styles" policy, and that this was endorsed by ArbCom - I know you disagree with the decision, but please respect it

16 October 2005

 * 05:18, October 16, 2005 - Humus sapiens reverts: RV Jguk's unjustified date notation change. See talk

17 October 2005

 * 12:36, October 17, 2005 - Jguk reverts: rv - I've approached Humus sapiens on his talk page to ask him to help resolve this


 * 14:26, October 17, 2005 - Squell reverts Jguk's date changes: rv to Humus Sapiens version. Jguk, if you want to discuss this, do so on the talk page of THIS article'. Stop this vendetta.
 * Jguk bails out.