This matter has been before arbitration (or perhaps just disussed at length on the mailing list) although I do not remember the details or even if we accepted the case. I just remember reading through a lot of it and wondering why the three perspectives you set forth could not suffice without attempts to impose a particular viewpoint on the various articles. I agree that there are problems with one, or probably several editors, who are not permitting the range of opinions on the matter to be expressed appropriately in the articles.
Fred
From: Skyring skyring@gmail.com Reply-To: Skyring skyring@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:39:47 +1000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Abusive editors who refuse to supply checkable sources
On 5/18/05, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"Skyring" wrote
I was speaking of abusive editors.
This will be about Adam Carr, won't it? I'm no great fan of Adam's approach. It seems to me you are probably doing the pettifogging thing yourself, rather than trying to word the relevant page: just banging on about sources endlessly isn't a way to a meeting on minds.
There is a policy on civility. If you think you have a case, you can take this to a formal procedure. If, as you say, you have been off WP for a while, you could also try to take a different tack to this matter of 'Australia as republic' - for example, let it ride and add to some other part of wiki-en.
Since you show no sign of changing the record, I shall not myself read any more of these mails.
Clearly you didn't read the discussion page I cited. Nobody was talking about republics. I'm trying to remove incorrect and unverified material. Adam's position is that a combination of abuse, threats, and shilling beats verifiability.
I disagree.
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l