Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by A. C. Santacruz: rfc participation re:acs |
→Le sigh: nah, sod it |
||
| (22 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
| text = <div class="center"><big>'''This page is for statements regarding the proposed decision, not discussion.<br>'''Therefore, with the exception of arbitrators and clerks, all editors must create a section for their statement and <u>comment only in their own section</u>.</big></div>
}}
{{notice|header=This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched|
*To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment]].
*To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]].
*To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]].}}{{Casenav|case name=Skepticism and coordinated editing|clerk1=Dreamy Jazz|clerk2=Amortias|clerk3=MJL|draft arb=Barkeep49|draft arb2=Izno|draft arb3=L235|draft arb4=|active=12|inactive=3|recused=0||scope=Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics}}
== PD extended one week ==
Line 28 ⟶ 31:
*{{u|Guy Macon Alternate Account}}, do note that basically everyone that's commented on that RfC is either a party to this case or have commented on the recent COIN thread and so are involved with the discussion from before the RSN thread. I'd argue there is still not wide enough participation in that RSN RFC to make any conclusions about it.[[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 17:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
*:It is at a centralized noticeboard so that it can be found by a wide range of editors and because it has an RfC tag, a number of others will recieve talk page messages inviting them to participate. In terms of attracting community attention that is basically all that you can expect - the other thing that can be done under [[WP:CANVASS]] would be to notify appropriate WikiProjects. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
*::I agree with you {{u|Barkeep49}}, but I found it important to differentiate between wide attention and wide participation. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 18:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by Bilby ==
Line 71 ⟶ 76:
::::Just to clarify, from evidence I submitted: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rp2006&curid=51412895&diff=1066569173&oldid=1066342021&diffmode=source 18 Jan 22], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=1065276966&oldid=1065268496&diffmode=source 12 Jan 22], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=1053756272&oldid=1039453572&diffmode=source 5 Nov 21]. The 5 Nov 21 diff is during the big Havana Syndrome thread at ANI, and directly re-adds a BLPvio that should probably have been revdelled. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=1022941474&oldid=1022755136&diffmode=source This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thomas_John_(medium)&diff=1022941609&oldid=1022941474&diffmode=source this] were my removals of the BLPvio, where I outline in the edit summary {{tq|undue and BLP violating. No felony conviction mentioned in sources... Removing BLP violating prose that is not in sources. No source for felony conviction, no source for sentencing date. remove repetition of the same information in the same paragraph.}} I don't think a reminder of "Hey, don't do that," would be out of line, especially as the ACS reminder is based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sharon_A._Hill&diff=next&oldid=1060656391&diffmode=source these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:A._C._Santacruz&diff=next&oldid=1060575945&diffmode=source two] diffs in evidence. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 11:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:If you're looking for a better fit than a topic ban, a reminder to observe the best practices in outlined in [[WP:COI]] might be what you're looking for. No topic bans, just use edit requests for edits you have a COI with, and disclosure. That allows the good editing in the topic area to continue unabated, isn't really a sanction, and addresses the FoF. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:{{u|Tryptofish}}, the pseudoscience DS wouldn't have applied to any of the topics I was involved in, as they didn't pay themselves as science. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 19:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm still surprised to see that we have:
'''Principle:''' {{tq|Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project.}}
'''Findings of Fact:''' {{tq|Because of her work off-wiki, Sgerbic has a conflict of interest with respect to the people and organizations Gerbic is involved with, which notably includes her work in Skeptical Inquirer and the people she has written about therein, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, where she has been awarded a fellowship and which publishes the Skeptical Inquirer... Rp2006 has a conflict of interest with respect to the Skeptical Inquirer and the Center for Inquiry (private evidence) and has promoted Susan Gerbic directly (ScottishFinnishRadish evidence) as well as indirectly by citing her work. (Schazjmd evidence).}}
'''Remedy:''' Nothing that addresses this, not even a reminder to adhere to [[WP:COI]].
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)
:The principle and FoF together are for the benefit of parties and the community going forward. Of course, all parties should consider themselves reminded to adhere to ArbCom principles as applied to the FoFs adopted by ArbCom. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 16:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by DGG==
Line 86 ⟶ 104:
:::I think my comment on the principle speaks to the questions to the others, so I won't attempt to answer them :^). [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Just acknowledging that I saw this, and I'm thinking about it. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 09:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
::::As I said in my follow-up, I withdrew my statement about training, but I might as well clarify. I wanted to say it seemed reasonable to not require GSoW to open up membership to anyone, but I guess I worded it poorly. For your other questions, it would certainly be nice if training were only offered by people without interests in promoting POVs, but we wouldn't be able to enforce that. All we can do is look at the resulting editing, which we do. I don't think required training is justified in any subject area (merely that I thought perhaps GSoW would be justified in having training as a prerequisite to actually joining GSoW). Finally, I find the hidden membership part orthogonal to any training concerns. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 08:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
:As the case seems about to close, I will ask one further question:
Line 101 ⟶ 120:
Per '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' on GSoW training: Background (8) I think you hit the nail on the head in your first two comments about our retention and community. While every volunteer group has issues with staying power - we have had pretty good success. On (9) we aren't novices anymore. Some of the team are tens of thousands of edits in, good articles, DYK and hundreds of pages written. Our work speaks for itself, KevinL you saw some of the work from a few of the team in the Evidence stage. We understand that "consensus can be established only on-wiki." We make the article live, and the page stands on its own merit or it does not, we can't force a page to exist when it is not notable. Skill comes from doing, and GSoW is doing a lot of doing.[[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 02:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
:[[User:L235|KevinL]], [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]] and [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] I understand that you are discussing GSoW training methods and are concerned/worried about the materials you didn't see, assuming they do not exist or if they do they are inadequate. When I sent you some of the training materials, I had to do so in a rush and I really only sent you beginning training materials. What you have viewed on YouTube is very old and I don't think I even assign that video anymore. All of the YouTube videos you find on that channel are old and mostly obsolete from what I remember of my last viewing of them. I don't remember who, but it was not someone from GSoW that brought them to your attention. Some were from 2012.
:As Wugapodes explained, no one in the beginning of training should be learning advanced skills like AfD, Notability and so on. These are people who are just learning to make their first citations and adding photos. I don't want to scare they off. Notability is very confusing, and it is different depending on the topic. An American baseball player can go to bat during one professional game for the major league and end up with a Wikipedia page, whereas a scientist that is instrumental in helping to create a life-saving vaccine is going to be held on a different notability standard. I'm over simplifying this of course, but that is the issue. Notability is a case-by-case discussion and in the GSoW community it can be a longish discussion between the team members. Very often someone suggests a page that we would consider would be on the fence for notability, we look for the citations and discuss, and sometimes the editor moves forward, sometimes they don't.
:To finish GSoW training as I explained in the private evidence and was mentioned here, the editor must rewrite a stub, using all the methods they learned in the smaller steps of training. As you know, a stub exists because it passed notability (usually) and lacks the rest of the content. Therefore I don't feel that we should be spending a lot of time teaching notability, AfD and more advanced lessons until they are done with the rewrite. There are lessons after the rewrite, just not a lot more.
:I'm training these people, mostly one-on-one with backup by the main group. I can't throw every piece of information at them at once, it has to be parceled out in chunks. AND of course they are welcome and encouraged to research answers on their own on Wikipedia. The silly article I sent you in private about explaining notability using an earthquake, was sent to you because it had a date on it, so you could see that we have been having this conversation for years within the team. It was just something I put together to help explain to non-Wikipedia editors why their band or book or themselves can't have a Wikipedia page. It's just a simplified example.
:As the trainer, I do not advise beginners, or even people who have passed training to touch anything that would be contentious, rarely anything that is paranormal related. I don't want anyone confronted or attacked by another editor who is having a bad day. When they are ready to move on to those pages, then sure, fine. No one is encouraged to use AfD on pages, they are taught to write pages, not add flags to the top telling others that the page needs rewriting, or the lead is too long, or that it has problems. They are taught how to fix the problems with the page and then we discuss if it is okay to remove the flag at the top. I'm not training people to be administrators, but Wikipedia page content creators who are here for the long haul. To be honest with you, I don't think I knew what PROD was before ACS used it on all those pages I mentioned in evidence. I would be furious if one of our people did that.
:Oh yeah, wanted to mention that this is not our first rodeo, I just looked at our stats and we have published 1,146 new pages to Wikipedia (not rewrites, but brand new) and 630 are brand new English pages. At the very beginning of my career here on Wikipedia, I myself stumbled to train myself, and made a lot of mistakes. Some of my work did not survive because I didn't have a clue and didn't know how to ask for help. Once the page is live, then it stays or is revised or deleted or whatever. So with over 600 English Wikipedia pages under our belt, 59 of them DYK (we stopped putting them up for DYK because it is so complicated and time consuming) I think we understand the concept of notability.
:And lastly as this looks like it will close soon and I won't be able to have this conversation with you all again (at least I think we are about done). I want to thank all the ArbCom for your professionalism and for spending so much time on this matter. I've learned a lot, GSoW and myself are already making a lot of changes. We take all the comments (even from the detractors) to heart and I don't think you will see reason to have myself or any of our people back in ArbCom again. This was a once in a lifetime learning experience and don't think I want the stress again. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 03:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by Guy Macon ==
Line 228 ⟶ 255:
==Comments by Bishzilla==
Little users perhaps not realize how petty looks to complain about one's opponent not being admonished harshly enough. Not dignified. Note Bishzilla herself "admonished" by little committee some years ago.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bishzilla/Archive#RfAr_Re_:_Bishzilla] Remain proud (compare [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Bishzilla&diff=1069140821&oldid=1069140482 proud userbox]), always remain dignified. [[User:Bishzilla|<b style="font-family:comic sans ms;font-size:125%;color:#0FF">''bishzilla''</b>]] [[User talk:Bishzilla|<i style="color:#E0E;font-size:175%;"><small><small><small><sub>R</sub>OA</small>R</small>R!</small>!</i>]] <b
== Comments by PaleoNeonate ==
Line 268 ⟶ 295:
::Before posting the PD I personally wavered about whether to include a new DS authorization, but ultimately what persuaded me not to was the fact that any disruption presented in this case isn't tied to a particular topic area but rather a particular group of editors, which in my view rendered the authorization of discretionary sanctions (which are generally tied to topic) inappropriate.
::Hope this answers your questions, but if I missed anything please ask. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 01:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree entirely about the things that are now moot because they will not pass, no problem. About the DS, I understand what you are saying, but I feel the need to point some things out. The ARCA clarification was about pseudohistory, false attempts to rewrite history. That's not particularly what the disputes here have been about. Consider, for example, [[ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic]]. That's a topic where scientific skepticism could readily apply, if it hasn't already. But obviously no one would argue that ivermectin is a living person covered by BLP. It clearly does fall within the PS topic area. That's why I'm arguing that it's useful to remind editors of ''both'' BLP ''and'' PS. That's not about authorizing new DS, which I agree is a dead issue here. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 18:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
::::Oh, I see, I midunderstood{{snd}}you aren't asking us to interpret PS to include all skepticism-related stuff; instead you just to include a reminder that PS DS is available where previously authorized. That's OK with me, though I'm not sure how much value that would add. Pinging co-drafters {{U|Izno}} and {{U|Barkeep49}} for any thoughts. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 19:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::I don't see value to adding a reminder at this time, since that regime is clearly known about. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::And, by its inclusion here, it would implicitly endorse the use of PSDS for this topic area. I am not a fan of an implicit endorsement. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::I can understand that. My thinking is that some parties to the case had explicitly said that they didn't realize that PSDS applied (even though {{u|Wugapodes}} had said so explicitly in a discussion close). But this is probably a matter mostly of editors who are already following the case, and presumably they know about it now from reading the case pages. I'll ping {{u|ScottishFinnishRadish}}, in case they want to comment about it. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
::::::::My read from the start has been that while this it taking place in the topic area of pseudoscience, pseudoscience is not actually at the heart of the issues we've identified. We have evidence of misconduct around [[WP:BLP]] and so the reminder (and awareness expectation) seems useful. There is no similar statement in the FoF around misconduct of the kind that pseudoscience DS is designed to mitigate. This is no doubt in part because of the scope of the case, but that scope came about because there was enough going on in this case without laying a full re-examination of pseudoscience on top of it. So for me I'm a no on the reminder because it's not a logical outgrowth of what we examined here. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::OK, with that, and with SFR's reply above, that's good enough for me. I consider ''all'' of the points that I've raised here to have been appropriately addressed. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 19:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:50AB:FFB9:DD80:EFC5 ==
Line 297 ⟶ 332:
::{{ping|L235|Worm That Turned}} Thanks for clarifying. I did indeed misunderstand. Makes me wonder why it says "...norms regarding ''transparency''...encourage that group's membership to be open". The ability to ''join'' may be in line with "open community" but doesn't achieve "transparency" except insofar as it's still a problem. "Group" is still incredibly broad, and "join" is ambiguous. "Groups" very often involve off-wiki identities. Saying that those groups must allow anyone to join means allowing anyone to determine the off-wiki identity of the people who attend. That's in some ways worse than requiring the group disclose a list of members. Throughout the GSoW discussions, it sure seems like a bunch of people have wanted to join ''so that'' they can discover the names/usernames of existing members, for example. I've never been involved with GSoW, but I have been involved with some "groups" that have not been open to the public. Sometimes this is just because it's an event run by a specific organization, a school club, for attendees of an academic conference, in a classroom, an informal "group" of friends who happen to be Wikimedians and might discuss Wikipedia, or, still the most important example, members of a vulnerable community wary of their identities being released. Most of the time, but not all, the ''activities'' of that group (if there are any) are collected in a Dashboard page and so are transparent at least in that way, but as long as off-wiki identities are involved, I'm extremely skeptical of chasing very broadly defined "transparency" on-wiki. Skeptics are not, IMO, a vulnerable group in most places (some may dispute that), but the rule you're creating here doesn't just apply to GSoW -- it would apply to everyone. And while I get what you're saying about our existing norms, you're applying them in a meaningful way -- one devoid of nuance -- rather than just gesturing to them.
::WikiNYC is perhaps a bad example now. Our events are almost all open to the public. So yes, you're welcome to come (FYI: [[Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC]] for the next one :) ). But if I were running an event that were for/about a vulnerable population, for example, there are people who are in "good standing" in the community that I wouldn't want to invite. Again, GSoW isn't what I'd call a vulnerable population, but just in this case there are new users in good standing who seem to spend much of their time going after GSoW, trying to delete articles related to skepticism, etc. That's not to say there aren't aspects of GSoW that should give us pause, or that this isn't a more complicated case than I'm making it out to be, but according to this principle that person must be allowed access to GSoW meetings. At the end of the day, there are plenty of good privacy reasons a group may want control over its own membership or attendance of its events. It's a big deal to enact a principle effectively saying those reasons conflict with wikipolicy/norms. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 15:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
<small>{{clerk note}} moved from {{section link|#Comments by Hob Gadling}}. As mentioned at the top of the page, please only comment in your own section. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 22:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)</small>
:Fair enough. Either way, we presumably agree that the proposed principle should be rejected. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 17:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)▼
== Comments by Hob Gadling ==
Line 302 ⟶ 339:
I do not dispute that, I just want to mention [[Narendra Dabholkar]], who did not live in one of those "most places" and was assassinated nine years ago. Outing an anonymous Indian or Pakistani skeptic may paint a target on their back. In other places, skeptics only risk financial ruin by frivolous lawsuits from quacks who can afford them. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]])
▲:Fair enough. Either way, we presumably agree that the proposed principle should be rejected. — <samp>[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup style="font-size:80%;">[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></samp> \\ 17:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by L235 ==
I have some concluding thoughts as we finish this case that I was going to try to work into my votes but ultimately might be best expressed here.
A few thoughts for the community at large:
* We resolved this case in a somewhat unusual way: we're acting as an "information clearinghouse" of sorts for non-public information and enacting way more FoFs than remedies. This is with the hope that, armed with relevant information, the community will be able to resolve any future problems as they come up. At times I have been frustrated with this approach, but given the specifics of the case I think this is the best we can do. Sometimes an ArbCom decision has the effect of supplanting community decision making in a topic area for a time. I absolutely ''don't'' want that happening here. The reason we made all the FoFs was to give the community the information we think it might need going forward; the community certainly should not hesitate to make decisions on the basis that ArbCom has made a decision.
* If I had one "positive" FoF to propose about GSoW, it would be that from what info is available to us, GSoW has invested a lot of effort into trying hard in good faith to comply with Wikipedia's norms and policies, even when it gets it wrong. This is uncommon among initiatives that work with newer editors.
* At points I have wondered if our decision here was too weak in some way, especially by failing to deter other organized groups with a single point-of-view that intentionally or unintentionally test the boundaries of what policy will accept. Ultimately I think we've struck the right balance given the specifics of the case but our decision shouldn't be viewed as a free pass for future offwiki groups to organize and bring POV people in. As illustrative examples, any Guerilla Democrats on Wikipedia or Guerilla Republicans on Wikipedia perhaps will not see the same relative leniency.
* The users who brought this case should be well thanked for their work in bringing this forward; our policies around private information make it difficult to truly follow-up plausible allegations of misconduct based on private information and everyone who took the time to work on this should be commended.
* If in a few months' time it's clear that our decision here doesn't fully resolve the conflict, I am quite amenable to an ARCA to see if our decision needs to be revisited. Please feel free to contact ArbCom if in doubt.
To {{U|Sgerbic}} and GSoW more broadly: I have a few notes that I hope will be helpful going forward but don't rise to the level of an ArbCom FoF or remedy:
* It would be great if you started new GSoW members off with [[WP:REALNAME]], either the link or an explanation of the contents. Maybe even something like [[Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion]], though that may be a bit intense. In short, try to make every new GSoW account pseudonymous, so that they can feel safe disclosing on-wiki that they're a GSoW member. I understand why your organization pushed back against releasing the list of GSoW members, but if your members were more effectively pseudonymous, I wonder if they'd be more willing to reveal their GSoW membership. Whether or not required by policy/community norms, having a public list of members would have had a soothing effect and I think likely would've avoided this whole case. For existing members, [[WP:CLEANSTART]] is a viable, though somewhat unattractive, option if they're worried about their Wikipedia work being tied to their real-life identities.
* On training: I understand that you and I don't share the same concerns, but I would encourage you to seek feedback on the full unabridged training and Facebook structure from other Wikipedians, especially ones who are uninvolved and unfamiliar with GSoW. If I were less busy, I'd offer to help myself. There is appetite for stronger training materials across the community including strong interest from several arbs in their individual capacities, and I think that could be quite fruitful for both GSoW and the broader community.
* Unlike what I think some GSoW members assume, Wikipedians collaborate, socialize, and build community with each other all the time off-wiki. Some of them are on Facebook{{snd}}the good folks who run [[Wikipedia:WikipediaWeekly]] have one of the bigger Facebook groups, I believe. Many others are on other platforms ([[WP:IRC]] and [[WP:Discord]] come to mind). There can be a bit of culture shock when entering these spaces, but I think it could be interesting for you to experience these communities and see how they build community as well as grapple with questions about what kinds of off-wiki collaboration are and aren't OK.
* I think it would be great if GSoW members in the future were to regard themselves as having a conflict of interest with you and any other leaders of GSoW, and voluntarily agree to disclose that COI and use only [[WP:ER|edit requests]] when editing ''about'' you or when ''citing'' your work. We didn't issue a formal remedy about this but I think I would've proposed one had an urgent incident not taken me away from Wikipedia briefly earlier (see also my note at [[#Comments by Bilby]]). I don't think this will be a big burden{{snd}}I know that writing about you and citing you is a very small part of GSoW's work.
* I'm sure GSoW is a great name in the context of non-Wikipedia but it causes friction on Wikipedia as I'm sure you have seen during this case. I think the onwiki presence described in Remedy 12 will help with that but other steps are also possible.
I'm always open for further informal discussion whether on this page or (after the case is closed) on my talk page. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 09:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||