" 

 == Response == 

 [Copied from Sunray's talk pageresponses added, point by point]  

 Jguk: I will continue to refer to Sortan as a sockpuppet, as there's evidence proving this beyond reasonable doubt - it's only proper to warn others. But I'm happy to add further justification in the edit summaries if I happen to revert him again.  

 :Sunray: If you look at Wikipedia:Sock puppet you will note that there is nothing illegal about a sock puppet per se.  The main purpose of sock puppets is to stack voting results and this is not permitted.  Using sock puppets to circumvent policy (e.g. avoid a ban) is likewise verbotten.  Otherwise, a sock is judged by its behavior, like anyone else.  Unless there is a formal process that establishes not only that it is a sock puppet, but that the sock puppet has contravened policy, it is uncivil to refer to someone as a sock puppet.  It is thus wise to avoid referring to people as ""sockpuppets"" and ""trolls,"" IMO.    

 ::Jguk: This sockpuppet is being used to hide a regular user's identity, and in this sense it is deceptive. I've been completely open about all my edits throughout, so being harangued by someone who has deliberately decided to sidetrack the flak does not go down well with me. See your comments above regarding me potentially standing for admin. Had I used the same tactic, you'd not be even considering objecting to this. I therefore will continue to judge this sockpuppet by its behaviour,   

 The changes that I made to revert to BC/AD after others had changed them to BCE/CE notation were immediately after a very large vote on the subject rejected a proposal to change pages to BCE/CE notation. I was joined in supporting that community decision by others, most notably RickK and violetriga. SouthernComfort was knowingly trying to implement a failed proposal - of course he was going to be reverted. Also some of the consensuses you claim are a small majority amongst a very small number of participants - for instance, you argued there was a consensus that all Taoism related articles should use BCE/CE notation on the basis of there being two comments in favour of using BCE/CE notation on the Taoism article, and one against. This is not consensus. And anyway, the proposal for date notation discussions to happen on an article by article basis was not passed. 

 :The guideline on consensus refers to ways of establishing consensus on talk pages.  A two thirds majority is required for consensus.  Two out of three thus meets that requirement.  I try to stick to the rules. 

 ::No it doesn't. It identifies certain percentages that may be used as a gauge as to whether consensus is reached. Consensus (in the normal sense) requires there not to be too much dissent from anything - and certainly not widespread dissent. On a relatively non-controversial issue, where people are choosing mild preferences, it is ok to have smaller percentages: the vote will be generally accepted. Generally speaking the more controversial and bitter the dispute, the higher the percentages of support that are required - WP:Consensus is a guideline - the way I've just described it is a pragmatic way of interpreting it. The principle of ""Votes are Evil"" is probably more pertinent here,   

 Slrubenstein made the whole argument a lot more vicious by putting forward a purely religio-political argument, and steering all discussion away from other points. We've both been around long enough in this world to know that if you want to stir things up, start a discussion on religion or politics. 

 :I agree the argument became highly charged.    

 This whole approach really lost touch with what we are doing: writing an encyclopaedia. When writing it is always important to think of your reader - being a good communicator means considering your audience and adapting your style and language to that reader. I work in a specialised area of UK tax law. I work with experts who know much more than me, and with juniors who are just beginning their careers and know nothing of tax law. I have clients who are tax experts, some who are accountants who don't want to know much about tax but want to learn something, and some who want to know nothing about tax - they just want to be told what they should do. I won't claim always to get it right - but I need adapt my language and style constantly. If I don't, I have confused colleagues or unhappy clients. I need to make sure that I convey my point in a way that gives my audience as little as work to do to understand it as possible. I work for my reader - I cannot expect my reader to work to understand what I say. 

 :You have used that line ""think of the reader"" to