Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Violetriga (talk | contribs) |
→On 3.1.3, "Do no harm": Applicability to the ArbCom case. |
||
Line 1,279:
:''For legal or ethical reasons we are not going to name at least one of the people directly related to the content of this article. Please be aware that clicking on any of the references or external links will show you such names.''
I'm a little worried that we are going a bit off topic here and while I think it is useful for the arbitrators to see this commentary I think it would be better off at the BLP talk page. [[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] [[User_talk:violetriga|(t)]] 18:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
:I really intended this to be taken in the context of the case under discussion, especially 3.1.3 and Raul's reversal regarding it. If 3.1.3 and 3.1.5 pass and there is an expectation that "being decent ... trumps everything, including amassing information in the encyclopedia", then there really needs to be a clearly delineation about what is "decent". I value ethical editing, and I acknowledge a need for decency and dignity, but [[I know it when I see it|I don't know it when I see it]], and I'm pretty sure I disagree starkly with Tony about it.
| |||