Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Backin72 (talk | contribs)
Line 475:
That covers all of Pcarbonn's evidence. ([[User talk:Phil153|talk]]) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 
==Evidence presented by [[User:Shot_info]]==
 
===Chilling effect and the withdrawl of editing by a number of editors===
Many previously active users now just engage in the project more as a social activity as admins (for example, Elonka) make it difficult to edit the encyclopedia as an encyclopedia rather than as a social experiment in civility (or as others put it - a MMORPG).
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymond_arritt/Expert_withdrawal Expert Withdrawal]
 
===Civil POV Pushing and it's effects on the encyclopedia===
A number of editors agree it's a problem. Admins have a problem identifying it and then acting on it. It's easier to ignore the symptoms until an editor goes off and then it's a "easy civility violation".
*[[User:Raul654/Civil POV pushing]]
*[[Wikipedia_talk:Civility/Archive_8#Balancing_civility_with_the_needs_of_the_encyclopedia]]
*[[User:Filll/CIVIL_POV_Pushing_Strategies]]
*[[WP:OWB]]
===Framing the Argument===
It should be noted to Arbs that MartinPhi is spending an inordinate amount of time conflating the two arguments "SPOV = Debunking" and "Debunking = Evil" hence pushing the argument "SPOV = Evil". I note that other editors who have been labeled as a civil POV pusher (such as Levine2112) have now taken up this argument. Will this tactic win over the Arbs, let see... [[User:Shot info|Shot info]] ([[User talk:Shot info|talk]]) 05:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 
==Evidence presented by [[user:MaxPont]]==