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

Revision as of 21:26, 21 January 2022

Revision as of 22:08, 21 January 2022

Line 68:

:::::::::::::::Also it is not uncommon for an editor such as Jessica Wise (I hope that is her name) to post pages she had written to Twitter and ask people to improve the article. Those responding to her request are not necessarily a part of her "team" but just other editors. That is NOT canvassing in any stretch of the imagination. So listing people that correct spelling on a page I have "announced" I just wrote does not mean the spelling fixer is GSoW.

:::::::::::::::I hate to keep harping these questions but I need to know, am I supposed to respond during this evidence phase to every thing listed here by my detractors? What are we at now? Over 100? And then I'm supposed to show evidence of good editing for myself and GSoW with my remaining 1000 words allowed? ArbCom can look at my edit history and those of the few GSoW editors that have chosen to out themselves, yet they are asking for me to supply evidence. AND do I need to respond to every diff that is listed here that is from a talk, user, admin conversation where the conversation might have become heated and the whole context is missing? And still do this within my 1,000 word limit? [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 21:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Wikipedia policy already disallows an editor from connecting a second editor to the second editor's offwiki or real identities without the second editor first adding that connection themselves onwiki (see [[WP:OUTING]]). If this has happened, you may request [[WP:oversight|oversight]] for permanent removal from view of most users with any of the methods described at [[WP:Oversight]].

::::::::::::::::However, as noted at WP:OUTING, editors may still connect the dots in a case of potential [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]], in which case they are allowed to submit those dots to an administrator or arbitrator. (As further noted, that should {{em|not}} generally extend to "investigation" offwiki.)

::::::::::::::::In general, our policy on [[WP:harassment|harassment]], of which OUTING is a part, is not okay, but the definition of harassment does not always extend to editors who are believed not to be here in good faith. In the context of a group of editors, it can be difficult to tell whether the group is here collectively or individually in good faith when the group is not transparent about their membership and activities (for whatever reason). (For an ancient community-resolved case of interest, [[WP:Esperanza|Esperanza]] is notable, and I see you've been linked to the previous arbitration case regarding [[WP:IRC|IRC]].) You can perhaps see why the activities that GSoW has taken would be of primary interest in this arbitration case, {{em|and also}} why we are accepting private evidence for this case.

::::::::::::::::Regarding claims of canvassing, we will evaluate such claims as part of our decision, the relevant policy pages for which are [[WP:canvassing]] and [[WP:meatpuppetry]]. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:08, 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)