First all I (and others) were doing was reverting articles back to the state they were in before SouthernComfort got to them (except for one mistake when I inadvertently changed it on [[Elamite Empire]]). SC's changes were just after the community had voted down Slrubenstein's proposal to move wholescale to his preferred notation. As I wasn't changing articles (SC was doing that), but merely enforcing the community vote. Even if the ArbCom disagree and decide SC was right to add his preferred notation to these articles, is taking a different view (in light of the community vote) something that is worthy of admonishment, let alone the threat of banning?
Fred says that the decision shows that "you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups that are offended by that usage....Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy". Yet instead of applying it to SouthernComfort (who was actually changing a wide range of articles in accordance with his preference), he chooses to apply it to me (who was merely trying to stop him from doing that). Has Fred really got the right man?
I should, as an aside, mention that I have in arguments and edit summaries to SouthernComfort referred to a "preferred notation". The context of that was not to misquote WP policy (which all participants are quite aware of), but to make the point that in practice almost all WP articles where there is a choice use BC/AD notation and that the overwhelming majority of English-writers in the world (90%+) choose BC/AD notation. It is in that sense that it is "preferred", and in that sense that I was using "preferred". I appreciate Fred would not, on a quick and possibly non-chronological, readthrough would not have picked up that context, but that's what it was. It's important ans Fred is saying that an important aspect in this is that I was arguing my preference was WP policy - let me assure everyone, that was not the case. Bearing this in mind, does Fred accept that his comment is no longer appropriate (or at least, should not in particular be directed against me)?
Ambi goes on to mention the wishes of the particular editors on the articles being dealt with. Well, I suggest that until SouthernComfort got to the articles, the preference was clear. Does SouthernComfort's involvement change anything. Well, for most of the articles, he had made as many (or as few) edits as me before he changed them. Since one person cannot make a difference to whether there is consensus, surely the answer is no - he alone has changed nothing. As to the "widespread agreement" Ambi refers to - the only evidence of such agreement is SouthernComfort claiming a "consensus" in his edit summaries (and on one talk page there is one other user agreeing with him - and two people does not a consensus make).
This whole case was confused right from the start - half the Arbitrators chose to take the case not to discuss behaviours but to discuss principles - namely (1) We have a failed proposal, which was very divisive; (2) Some editors are trying to implement that failed proposal; (3) Other editors are trying to stop them. It seems ArbCom are deciding whether they like the failed proposal or not (a content issue, which they shouldn't be looking at anyway), deciding that they do like it, and then moving to ban the user who has tried to stop its implementation.
On the "offensiveness" point, my opponents have offended me and (as they have admitted themselves) deliberately so. SouthernComfort's "offence" is so acute that when he wrote his paragraph supporting Slrubenstein's proposal, he did not even think it worthwhile mentioning it. Indeed, none of Slrubenstein's supporters actually claimed to be offended themselves by BC/AD notation. So, as RickK said to begin with, shouldn't WP ignore the "I am offended" argument rather than pander to it?
Overall, I have been completely put off WP by the whole incident, and you will not see jguk returning. I have received many messages of support (and indeed have found it heartwarming that everyone who has commented on the case who does not support SC on the content issue has noted that the ArbCom has gone too far and is too one-sided in this case. This is true regardless of whether they have been involved in the case or are neutral outsiders.
Kind regards
jguk
Ambi wrote: I think this is a bad way of putting what is a sound idea in this instance. It is true that Jguk was changing date formats to something that offended SouthernComfort and others. It is also true, however, that SouthernComfort had been changing date formats to something that offended Jguk and others.
The issue here, though, is that deciding on these issues (as with whether to use American or English English) comes down to the editors of a particular article. There appears to be widespread agreement on the particular articles involved (of which SouthernComfort was one of the editors) that BCE-CE was preferable in this instance. Jguk then went around changing them to his preference anyway, regardless of the article consensus - and that's what isn't on.
-- ambi
On 6/19/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
No, it sets the precedent you cannot impose the particular usage you prefer on the rest of the world, especially on groups who are offended by that usage. It is more an elaboration of our general policy on courtesy. Another aspect of the decision is that you cannot unilaterally declare your preference Wikipedia policy without having it adopted as an actual policy.
Fred
On Jun 18, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Rick wrote:
This decision is apparently setting the precedent that if a user can claim that edits they disagree with are offensive to them, then their view is the only acceptable view and the rest of Wikipedia's editors can go hang.
RickK
--------------------------------- How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
On 6/19/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On the "offensiveness" point, my opponents have offended me and (as they have admitted themselves) deliberately so. SouthernComfort's "offence" is so acute that when he wrote his paragraph supporting Slrubenstein's proposal, he did not even think it worthwhile mentioning it. Indeed, none of Slrubenstein's supporters actually claimed to be offended themselves by BC/AD notation. So, as RickK said to begin with, shouldn't WP ignore the "I am offended" argument rather than pander to it?
You're right that offense shouldn't be a part of our decision on what to use, but it is a part of civility. Following someone around and making changes that offend them is not polite. However. some people are offended by things which do not push their point of view, so we really don't have a choice but to change things. In other cases we do have a choice, such as in the linguistic dialect issue.
The primary argument against using the BC/AD notation, after you cut away the offense cruft, is the claim that it is a violation of NPOV and that it is the more common language used in scholarly research. The primary counter argument is that time and commonality has washed away any POV status and that BCE/CE is not commonly enough understood. ..and it appears that the counter counter claim is that the counter claim is bogus since many academics have moved to BCE/CE due to perceived POV pushing and that any lack of understanding can be solved via a wiki-link.
In all of the discussion it seems to be that the majority of wikipedia is not convinced by either argument and is willing to tolerate both usages. In the future this position may be clarified, but today it is where we appear to stand. As a result, no one should begrudge you for using BC/AD in articles as you add content.
However, that isn't the issue in question here. This isn't a content issue at all as the largest part of the complaint appears to be about follow around users using the acceptable CE/BCE notation and changing it to the BC/AD... That the users here are offended by that usage is a matter of merit because it what takes your behaviour from simply being against the majority and makes in an uncivil act towards other editors.
Well put.
Fred
On Jun 19, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/19/05, Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On the "offensiveness" point, my opponents have offended me and (as they have admitted themselves) deliberately so. SouthernComfort's "offence" is so acute that when he wrote his paragraph supporting Slrubenstein's proposal, he did not even think it worthwhile mentioning it. Indeed, none of Slrubenstein's supporters actually claimed to be offended themselves by BC/AD notation. So, as RickK said to begin with, shouldn't WP ignore the "I am offended" argument rather than pander to it?
You're right that offense shouldn't be a part of our decision on what to use, but it is a part of civility. Following someone around and making changes that offend them is not polite. However. some people are offended by things which do not push their point of view, so we really don't have a choice but to change things. In other cases we do have a choice, such as in the linguistic dialect issue.
The primary argument against using the BC/AD notation, after you cut away the offense cruft, is the claim that it is a violation of NPOV and that it is the more common language used in scholarly research. The primary counter argument is that time and commonality has washed away any POV status and that BCE/CE is not commonly enough understood. ..and it appears that the counter counter claim is that the counter claim is bogus since many academics have moved to BCE/CE due to perceived POV pushing and that any lack of understanding can be solved via a wiki-link.
In all of the discussion it seems to be that the majority of wikipedia is not convinced by either argument and is willing to tolerate both usages. In the future this position may be clarified, but today it is where we appear to stand. As a result, no one should begrudge you for using BC/AD in articles as you add content.
However, that isn't the issue in question here. This isn't a content issue at all as the largest part of the complaint appears to be about follow around users using the acceptable CE/BCE notation and changing it to the BC/AD... That the users here are offended by that usage is a matter of merit because it what takes your behaviour from simply being against the majority and makes in an uncivil act towards other editors. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Jon thagudearbh@yahoo.co.uk
First all I (and others) were doing was reverting articles back to the state they were in before SouthernComfort got to them (except for one mistake when I inadvertently changed it on [[Elamite Empire]]).
That describes your more recent actions on a relatively narrow set of articles. It does not describe your more lengthy campaign against BCE/CE notation, including in the MOS and Common Era articles themselves.
I should, as an aside, mention that I have in arguments and edit summaries to SouthernComfort referred to a "preferred notation". The context of that was not to misquote WP policy (which all participants are quite aware of), but to make the point that in practice almost all WP articles where there is a choice use BC/AD notation and that the overwhelming majority of English-writers in the world (90%+) choose BC/AD notation. It is in that sense that it is "preferred", and in that sense that I was using "preferred".
The term for what you are describing is "more common", not "preferred".
I appreciate Fred would not, on a quick and possibly non-chronological, readthrough would not have picked up that context, but that's what it was. It's important ans Fred is saying that an important aspect in this is that I was arguing my preference was WP policy - let me assure everyone, that was not the case. Bearing this in mind does Fred accept that his comment is no longer appropriate (or at least, should not in particular be directed against me)?
You made it clear the you, personally, "preferred" this usage, and attempted to enforce it on dozens of articles over a period of 8 months. I find your current explanation of "preferred" to be difficult to reconcile with your actions.
Jay.