Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by L235: + one more point |
→Le sigh: nah, sod it |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 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 ==
| |||