Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 603:

*:::::::::I was under the impression that the relationship of mainstream science to Wikipedia's content policies has [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion#Encyclopedic_coverage_of_science|already been clarified by the Committee]]. But hey, if it will keep everyone occupied while I edit some articles, I'm all for it. :) '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' ^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 05:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

*::::::::::That finding does not provide much detail. There have been large fights over sourcing, and how to balance competing views. I think it would be useful to look at these conflicts in greater detail and provide more guidance. If SA is going to continue editing, give him a toolbox full of findings that he can '''politely''' use to halt the spread of misinformation via Wikipedia. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 14:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

*:::::::::::The problem is that the Committee can't really issue a bunch of content findings, right?. It also can't address sourcing in a general sense, really, though it could address ''specific'' cases in which editors abuse sources. Yeah, it would be great to have a finding indicating that Wikipedia's purpose is to become a serious, respectable reference work, and that using this site to doggedly promote nutty claims hurts the project. But every thinking editor here already ''knows'' that. I don't see what difference another finding will make. We're not lacking in policy justifications. The problem is not on the theoretical level - it's where the rubber hits the road: implementation.<p>I don't have the energy at this point to care too deeply about another ArbCom case, but I'm just praying that the new Committee will avoid "civility parole", or "AGF parole", or any such idea - and that it will avoid kicking the matter back to [[WP:AE]]. The "any uninvolved admin" remedies only burn out the good admins at [[WP:AE]] and give the ones with questionable judgement way too much of a power trip. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;^{[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]} 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

*(reset indent) Commentators are advised that this section is normally used by clerks, not for threaded discussion. :P - [[User:Penwhale|Penwhale]] &#124; ^{[[User_talk:Penwhale|Blast him]] / [[Special:Contributions/Penwhale|Follow his steps]]} 15:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)