Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Le sigh: nah, sod it |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 5 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 101 ⟶ 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 251 ⟶ 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 335 ⟶ 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]])
== 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} ==
| |||