Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →Sgerbic questions: ce |
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
||
Line 48:
:::::::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 sides), 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)
::::::::Yes, thank you. How do I know that any information given privately is going to be kept privately to Arbcom members listed here only.
::::::::I completely understand that this is a line in the sand that after what ever ruling comes down, the accusers will be told to leave well-enough alone. Going forward this is a new world. I get that. Of course we will make changes, we already have as I have already said in my statement at ArbCom. But how can there be a examination of the training when the training is private and unknown? I'm not understanding the scope.
::::::::Question #2 What is meant by being related to skepticism? Is this any interaction from the beginning of an editors edit history? Only the last six months? What? And what is meant specifically by skepticism. I seem much of this "evidence" is from talk pages, COIN, user pages, threads that escalated into drama from all over WikiMedia. I thought we were talking about main pages and the specific talk page at question. Are we talking about pseudoscience pages, fringe pages, science pages ... what? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 18:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||