Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:08, 21 January 2022

Revision as of 21:18, 21 January 2022

Line 65:

::::::::::::::Then, of course they would have to show that this person made some sort of bad edits. Off-wiki coordination is allowed if it doesn't harm the encyclopedia. For example, I am part of an informal group who sometimes discuss improving our coverage of [[ARM architecture|ARM microcontrollers]], but we follow the rules.

::::::::::::::Even then the above doesn't prove that "The GSoW" did something wrong, just the individual who made the bad edits. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Thank you Guy - I wasn't aware that it was okay to visit the GSoW Facebook page (which is public - so much for hiding our edits) and making a list of who is responding to comments. That gives the "investigator" the personal name of the editor. I can't obviously stop someone from doing this, but it does seem bad faith. One editor did so in 2020 and was told to knock it off, and apparently did so. But it started up again in November 2021 and continues, I'm not seeing any repercussions to that editor, so I suppose this is considered okay?

:::::::::::::::Also it is not uncommon for an editor such as Jessica Wise (I hope that is her name) to post pages she had written to Twitter and ask people to improve the article. Those responding to her request are not necessarily a part of her "team" but just other editors. That is NOT canvassing in any stretch of the imagination. So listing people that correct spelling on a page I have "announced" I just wrote does not mean the spelling fixer is GSoW.

:::::::::::::::I hate to keep harping these questions but I need to know, am I supposed to respond during this evidence phase to every thing listed here by my detractors? What are we at now? Over 100? And then I'm supposed to show evidence of good editing for myself and GSoW with my remaining 1000 words allowed? ArbCom can look at my edit history and those of the few GSoW editors that have chosen to out themselves, yet they are asking for me to supply evidence. AND do I need to respond to every diff that is listed here that is from a talk, user, admin conversation where the conversation might have become heated and the whole context is missing? And still do this within my 1,000 word limit? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

{{od|::::::::::::::}}Sgerbic, I know from personal experience as a party that it is stressful. So you have my empathy on that. ArbCom is going to evaluate the evidence we receive. And we are going to do so in a deliberate and procedure bound way. It's kind of up to you how much you would like to share. I certainly understand why you choose not to train onwiki because it is, as you note, intimidating for many. But that is going to raise questions because Wikipedians are, by their nature, skeptical when something lacks transparency. Part of the value of ArbCom is in having people trusted by the community to characterize information that can't be made transparent. Either way, ArbCom will evaluate the evidence we do have, including how strong we think evidence is that someone is a GSoW member. Might we get some of it wrong? Perhaps which is why if you want to share evidence with us privately, that remains open to you and if not, well as someone bound by strict confidentiality agreements, I will understand without prejudice. ArbCom will absolutely evaluate evidence showing that you and other GSoW members have been harassed or otherwise treated in ways that violate behavior expectations. That is part of this process. As to word counts, we are in general quite open to extensions where they make sense. We want to make good decisions and the purpose of word counts is to make sure we're not overwhelmed with evidence, that we don't miss things because it was buried amidst lots of usefulness information. Given the amount of information you have that is pertinent to this case I would expect we'd be particularly open to reasonable extension requests from you. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)