Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
→Sgerbic questions: Reply |
||
Line 55:
:::::::::You are a skeptic and I don't blame you for being skeptical about private information. That said, I think ArbCom's track record is strong in this area for a number of years. Every member of the committee has signed a non-disclosure agreement and also takes this quite seriously. I obviously can't share what the committee receives that doesn't ever get made public, but if you read through the archives of the [[WT:ACN|ArbCom noticeboard]] you can get a sense of some of it. Some of the information we receive is of far more public consequence than this case and that information doesn't leak. Ultimately you will need to make a choice about your trust level. {{pb}}As for how we will proceed with incomplete information, we will make decisions based on the evidence we do have. If we don't receive access to the full training, we will make the decision based on the evidence submitted that gives some insight into that training. We're trying to gather as much evidence as we can, which is why we're accepting private evidence which is quite unusual for cases. Then we're going to examine how that evidence shows compliance with policies and guidelines, report our findings, and issue any remedies we think appropriate.{{pb}}In terms of what evidence can be submitted, basically everything you listed could be submitted. In general the newer something is the more weight it will be given. Something from a few years ago will probably be considered stale, unless it can be shown to be part of an ongoing pattern. {{pb}}As to {{tqq|related to skepticism}} I agree it's some what ambiguous; it is intentionally so. We don't want to preempt evidence that would help illuminate the core issues at hand, but we also don't want to do a complete examination of the topic area (like some suggested we do as a sort of follow-up to pseduoscience). And those core issues are the conduct of the named editors and the actions of GSoW. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::Can I have a private conversation with only ArbCom. I will answer questions there. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 18:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::::As you know the default on Wikipedia is public and transparent. ArbCom is special in that we have the option of doing some things privately. But even still there is the community expectation, codified in [[WP:ARBPOL|policy]], that we will be public and transparent as much as possible. As I noted above even accepting private evidence in this case is unusual (but also necessary in order to comply with other policies and guidelines,
:::::::::::11:03 AM with [[WP:OUTING]] being foremost among them). Further, it is not practice for Arbs to have conversations with parties about matters of substance; this is why there hasn't been any comments from Arbs about the evidence submitted so far. Even an extended conversation like this about procedure is a little unusual. That said, our [[Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee|email]] is most definitely open to you (for instance for private evidence). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 19:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||