Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Sgerbic questions: Asserions without supporting evidence are ignored. |
→Sgerbic questions: reply to sgerbic |
||
Line 65:
::::::::::::::Then, of course they would have to show that this person made some sort of bad edits. Off-wiki coordination is allowed if it doesn't harm the encyclopedia. For example, I am part of an informal group who sometimes discuss improving our coverage of [[ARM architecture|ARM microcontrollers]], but we follow the rules.
::::::::::::::Even then the above doesn't prove that "The GSoW" did something wrong, just the individual who made the bad edits. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
{{od|::::::::::::::}}Sgerbic, I know from personal experience as a party that it is stressful. So you have my empathy on that. ArbCom is going to evaluate the evidence we receive. And we are going to do so in a deliberate and procedure bound way. It's kind of up to you how much you would like to share. I certainly understand why you choose not to train onwiki because it is, as you note, intimidating for many. But that is going to raise questions because Wikipedians are, by their nature, skeptical when something lacks transparency. Part of the value of ArbCom is in having people trusted by the community to characterize information that can't be made transparent. Either way, ArbCom will evaluate the evidence we do have, including how strong we think evidence is that someone is a GSoW member. Might we get some of it wrong? Perhaps which is why if you want to share evidence with us privately, that remains open to you and if not, well as someone bound by strict confidentiality agreements, I will understand without prejudice. ArbCom will absolutely evaluate evidence showing that you and other GSoW members have been harassed or otherwise treated in ways that violate behavior expectations. That is part of this process. As to word counts, we are in general quite open to extensions where they make sense. We want to make good decisions and the purpose of word counts is to make sure we're not overwhelmed with evidence, that we don't miss things because it was buried amidst lots of usefulness information. Given the amount of information you have that is pertinent to this case I would expect we'd be particularly open to reasonable extension requests from you. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||