Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Tiny example: comment |
→Encouraged, discouraged and dismayed: The ArbCom is allowing Original Research---at this point they are creating policy |
||
Line 416:
::::::You know what TS.... I am fed up with editors who think its fine to attack other editors and other people. You admit to a personal attack, so back off ... and when someone else comes in and indicates the problem assuming you might have missed it somehow ... well name calling just doesn't help anything for anyone. The Arbs need to be patrolling these pages. Be glad it was another editor who asked for civility and not an Arb ([[User:Littleolive oil|olive]] ([[User talk:Littleolive oil|talk]]) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC))
If my interpretation of policy is idiosyncratic, well, it's too bad because this ArbCom reflects my interpretation. IPOF, my interpretation is mainstream Wikipeida, and therefore opposed to debunker-interpretations of policy. TS does seem to be on the attack. The ArbCom has no evidence to go on in its assertions that I tried to make policy more congenial to fringe, though if it were inclined it could get evidence to the contrary. PARITY is simply against RS: it allows using bad fringe and bad anti-fringe or mainstream sourcing.
Of course, the ArbCom is allowing Original Research in this decision, and that will come back at them for clarification, and they will have to either repudiate it or give some hocus-pocus redefinition of it. Because at this point they are creating policy. ——'''[[User:Martinphi|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi|Ψ]]~[[Special:Contributions/Martinphi|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
== On remedy 7 and stoking fires ==
| |||