[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

Tue Jun 21 13:44:49 UTC 2005

No I don't have it in for you. When I looked at the case I had no  
opinion, had not even thought about common era notation or about you.  
I don't remember anything about you from CheeseDreams. Having spent a  
day going over your edits and those of the others involved and  
reviewing Wikipedia policies and locating a bunch of pages and votes  
on the topic I made some PROPOSED decisions. Not a final decision,  
just proposed decisions, which were never adopted, and it looks like  
won't be.

Based on the proposed decisions you decided to throw in the towel.

As to the underlying controversy, Wikipedia opinion is divided,  
apparently about equally. It is up to the community at large to  
determine how to resolve the matter. I have one suggestion, however:  
Having a definite decision is sometimes better than having the right  
decision. That said, deciding what notation to use for eras is a  
community decision.

My proposed decision simply stated what is true, that common era  
notation is finding favor in the scholarly community.

May I suggest you drop all this crap and go back to editing. I am  
bruised too but intend to consider the next case on the docket and do  
the best that I can.

Fred

On Jun 21, 2005, at 3:15 AM, Jon wrote:

> It seems Fred has it in for me - whether this is because he shares  
> the views of the BCE/CE lobby and so is unable to step back and be  
> neutral or because he still has it in for me over the CheeseDreams  
> incident, I don't know. But it's getting out of hand.
>
> Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument? It's that  
> (along with attempts to delete [[2005 English cricket season]])  
> that turned me off WP and made it no longer fun. That's why jguk  
> isn't there editing anymore - because it's no longer fun, not  
> because I am trying to use my editing absence as part of any  
> greater ploy.
>
> The content wars continue apace though. Those who oppose my view  
> are trying to get ArbCom to decide I am wrong to espouse my view -  
> though they have even more forcefully than me tried to impose their  
> views over a much longer period than me. But, hey - that's  
> political correctness for you - the PC lobby are not noted for  
> their tolerance and understanding of others' views. It's coming to  
> something when edits such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? 
> title=Msha%27sha%27iya&diff=0 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ 
> index.php?title=1879_in_archaeology&diff=prev&oldid=15475197 are  
> held against someone! I struggle to find how anyone finds those  
> edits unreasonable - indeed, they very much do put usual formation  
> of dates into the article! However, Fred and Jayjg think these  
> edits are so bad as to actually be reprehensible! Surely this whole  
> ArbCom thing has already gone beyond reason!
>
> There is a straightforward question behind all this that the ArbCom  
> has not even addressed - what should happen when some users try to  
> implement a failed proposal and are reverted by other users?
>
> Decide this question and leave all other issues alone (it is as  
> unfair to admonish SouthernComfort as it is me - we were both  
> hastened along quite deliberately by Slrubenstein as it is).
>
> Jguk
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps  
> for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>