Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Jguk/Proposed decision

message: 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)
thread_title: Re: Proposed findings of fact: 3) Jguk's preference

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is ridiculous 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed remedy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question to David Gerard

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The significance of ArbCom's final decision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed principle