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 can not expect my reader to work to understand what I say You have used that line think of the reader to