Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
||
Line 52:
::::::::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)
:::::::::Is there a place that I can have a private conversation with ArbCom members only? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 18:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||