Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2/Evidence

This isn't fair to Fred. He expressed a view in just the same way that other arbcom members have done. He wasn't endorsing Slrubenstein's proposal (that BCE be used across the board), but simply reiterating the arbcom decision, which was passed unanimously, that BCE could be changed to BC, and vice versa, where the editors on the page agree there's a substantial reason to do so. I feel bad for Jguk that he's so frustrated about this, but I also feel he's simply trying to neutralize (what he sees as) the opposition, by trying to make Fred a party to the case so that he can't act as an arbitrator. I hope the other members won't allow that to happen, because otherwise this tactic could be used by any editor in future to implicate any member they think might oppose them. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:04, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Fred's statement is that WP policy effectively allows anyone to change any instance of BC/AD notation to BCE/CE, but not in the opposite direction. That is clearly not how anyone else interprets it (not even, as far as I am aware, Humus sapiens).


 * I have throughout tried to encourage everyone to accept the previous decision - which I do not believe was an open invitation for editors to take each page in turn and re-argue the case. I checked my interpretation with Raul654, who heard the case, and James F, the first arbitrator to comment on the clarification request agreed that the interpretation was "no changes". I fully encouraged those who disagreed with my interpretation of the ArbCom's decision to have a quiet chat with the ArbCom to get this sorted quickly. Instead, Humus sapiens went nuclear.


 * SV is entirely right that I am frustrated - we had a decision reached after a lot of anguish for all involved - almost everyone was ok with accepting the "no changes" approach apart from a couple of users (one of which is a sockpuppet role account), and those two users firmly rejected any attempt to come to an understanding. Instead they continue to get at me. Well, it's a shame that's the case, but since I have to, I will defend myself fully, jguk 16:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

On reflection, I have reworded it as a request for a formal clarification of the earlier decision, accepting the approach that someone had of naming Fred as a nominal defendent. I stress throughout that I have only sought to encourage acceptance of the earlier decision, and comments made by Raul654 and James F. back up the way I was interpreting it 100%. I do not think it fair to portray me as being in contempt of the earlier decision, jguk 16:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I put my comment on the evidence page yesterday by mistake. Sorry about that, and thank you to whoever moved it. I think the request for clarification in relation to Fred makes more sense, Jguk. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)