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

Revision as of 23:05, 21 January 2022

Revision as of 23:37, 21 January 2022

Line 28:

:::::No one is on trial. Coordinated editing would be if editor A is reverted, then A gets like-minded editors B and possibly C to assist restoring A's text. That might happen in fact (A did canvass B and C), or it might happen because A, B and C watch each other and cooperate. The case request is archived at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Preliminary statements|Preliminary statements]]. It shows the claims that were made such as whether inappropriate off-wiki coordination has occurred and whether GSoW has violated any Wikipedia policies. Other claims concern possible violations of [[WP:COI]]. That has been summed up in the scope of "Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics" shown on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing|main case page]]. Anyone can respond to claims made at the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence|evidence page]] but responses should be brief and focused on edits that have occurred, with links. Private evidence will not be shared. It's obvious what that is about, namely an editor has (it is claimed) linked to a reference that they themselved wrote. The private evidence will contain opinions regarding that. In principle, it could be any information that would not be suitable for public hearing. When anyone's history is examined, defects are always found. The question for Arbcom will concern the big picture of whether GSoW helps or harms the development of articles that comply with policies such as [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:BLP]]. Others will list every claimed defect, so you may like to show some edits that are good, or refute some of the claims. A key question will be whether there are recent defects (in the last few months) and whether attempts to remove defects have been hindered by GSoW participants. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 03:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::So to be clear "Statement by GeneralNotability" with the three questions that I answered in my first statement is what this is all about? The evidence that is presented is to answer those questions? And do I address each of the pieces of evidence, one at a time? So you say that no one is on trial, but it does sound like GSoW is on trial. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 03:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::I don't feel qualified to help with the general questions; I just wished to note that I believe any evidence you might have that GSoW does not engage in coordinated editing would be as relevant as evidence that they do. My definition was intended to be general, so I meant editors in general - note that while coordinated editing can be bad, if done in the wrong way or with the wrong intent, I don't believe that it is inherently bad. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::How in the heck am I going to present evidence that it does not happen? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 03:59, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::"If done in the wrong way"? Can I get something to read that explains this? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 04:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Probabilistic evidence might be helpful, though difficult to produce without access to a list of members and articles. As for the wrong way, I don't think there is anything to read, but I would say that in general it is done in the wrong way if it is not done in accordance with our policies and guidelines. As an extreme example, [[Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies|these companies]] are doing coordinated editing in the wrong way.

:::::::::However, I think I will leave this discussion here, as I worry that I am confusing the matter rather than helping. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::But BilledMammal aren't you one of the people producing evidence against me? I thought you understood all this, you just wrote that you don't feel qualified to help with the general questions, so I really don't understand now. Who can answer these questions? I have to come up with a statement by the end of the month and have no clue what I'm responding to. Am I supposed to asking these questions somewhere else? And is there something I can read a policy or something that would make it clear? I don't want to respond to something that sounds like "we know it when we see it". [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 04:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::Is GSoW being accused of being a group of paid editors? No one is paid, how would I prove that? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 04:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::I believe the best people to answer those questions are ArbCom, although I believe Johnuniq's answers are generally correct. Before leaving the discussion, I will just clarify that as far as I know GSoW is not being accused of being a group of paid editors; the example I presented was just an extreme example of improper coordinated editing. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 04:39, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::So where do I go to get the answers? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 04:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::You're at the right place, just need to wait now. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 05:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:Hi Sgerbic, I've seen these questions. We (the drafters) will try to have some answers for you tomorrow (as I need to sleep). --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 06:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Sgerbic|Susan]]. There is no one right way to present evidence and the general principles of good writing tend to apply: be concise and clear and backup your writing with evidence. In terms of scope, I think you're aware of the concerns expressed about GSoW and your editing in past discussions. You can also see the evidence others are providing. Focusing on responding to those, and providing evidence of any misconduct you've seen from the other parties, would be' ''one'' reasonable approach. You start with 1000 words and 100 diffs for your evidence, which would include any rebuttal evidence. Traditionally the committee has been fairly willing to grant reasonable exceptions (for instance we're about to grant an extra 250 words to someone), you would just need to ask. In terms of private evidence, I will need to get back to you. I think I've touched on all your big questions, but I'm sure I might have missed something important or you might have follow-ups. Please ask. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)