Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by {username}: comment |
|||
Line 20:
* The proposed remedy on GSoW membership recommends a well-publicized discussion happen but does not outline where it would be best to hold the discussion (as opposed to RfC on SI, which Arbcom suggests happen at RSN). I think outlining what noticeboard or talk page would be best for this discussion would be helpful. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by
I'd like to thank the committee for their work in writing this - it is a complex issue and difficult to manage. My only real concern is that it leaves the problem of a group led by an editor seemingly acting on behalf of that editor untouched although raised, even if that editor is ultimately sanctioned by the committee. I'd like to suggest a statement along the lines that GSoW editors are regarded to have a conflict of interest in regards to the work of Sgerbic (and possibly Rp2006) as that would address the sorts of problems we saw with Tyler Henry without needing any specific sanction. I think that would be in keeping with he common reading of COI that members of an organisation have a COI in regard to the actions of that organsiation and the leadership of the same. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 23:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||