Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by ScottishFinnishRadish: question about COI principle and FoFs. |
|||
Line 84:
Does Arbcom judge that this COI editing was not an issue? If not, why are there FoFs and a principle relating to it? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
:Remedy 9.1 is relate to Rp2006 and CoI, hence the need for the finding and the principle. I did not personally believe that a reminder was necessary as I felt the finding was sufficient - I felt the same way about the A. C. Santacruz remedy and stated it there. As far as I'm concerned, remedies need findings which need principles, but principles do not require findings, nor do findings require remedies. In other words, you need a reason to act but do not have to act simply because the reason exists. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#000;">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 13:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by DGG==
| |||