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

Content deleted Content added
Line 47:
:::::::I should add, a non-trail but evidence is being asked for, and there may be disciplinary sanctions. How is that not a trial? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::::It's an examiniation into the conduct of you and six other specific editors you can find [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing#Involved_parties|here]]. It is an examination into whether the actions of GSoW as an organization have violated any policies and guidelines. The answer might be no. If it is your critics will have a much harder time making future accusations that gain traction. If the answer is yes, I would presume you would be willing to make changes. If you would, privately, like to share the list of editors who are GSoW members, so that it's not a group of unknown editors that option is open to you. I am hoping that these answers are useful in helping you understand what is going on here. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Some distinctions between this and trials in western democratic systems, include the fact that there can be more than two sides (as in this case as I don't think the parties can be cleanly split into two dies), the expectation is that people represent themselves, and past cases don't form a binding precedent. Interested parties can also give input into the resolution, both by proposing it (at the workshop), and commenting on it before it is enacted (at the proposed decision). All that said if it helps you to think of this as a trial, rather than an examination (the word I have been using) I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise but I did want to set expectations that not everyone will be thinking of it that way. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)