From: Jon <thagudearbh(a)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.