[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom

Tue Jun 21 18:48:00 UTC 2005

>From: Jon <thagudearbh at yahoo.co.uk>
>
>Why can't the ArbCom just stop all the content argument?
>

I don't see this as a content argument, but rather an issue of someone 
attempting to impose a POV on hundreds of Wikipedia articles over a period 
of many months, even though he knows his POV is supported neither by policy 
nor consensus, and has been opposed by any number of Wikipedia editors.

>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

See above.

>However, Fred and Jayjg think these edits are so bad as to actually be 
>reprehensible!

How deceptive.  Two edits aren't the issue.  Over 1,000 edits on over 700 
articles are.

>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?

You must be referring to yourself here, as you tried to change the Manual of 
Style to promote your view that only BC/AD should be used, and were reverted 
by other users on that and on your subsequent attempts to change articles to 
follow your position.

>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).

It all boils down to Slrubenstein does it?  You've been deleting BCE/CE from 
Wikipedia for months before Slrubenstein made his proposal.

Jay.