From: Jon thagudearbh@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.