[WikiEN-l] Content, reason and the ArbCom
JAY JG
jayjg at hotmail.com
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.
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list