Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by Bilby: Reply |
|||
Line 22:
== Comments by Bilby ==
I'd like to thank the committee for their work in writing this - it is a complex issue and difficult to manage, and I think as a list of proposals that this is an excellent way of threading through the issues. 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)
:One of the issues the drafters saw that we'd like to prevent is further attempts to identify editors in the group of interest, both for the concerns regarding privacy and for concerns that that activity isn't particularly productive (as opposed to identifying editors who are here with the intent to promote, for example, which can be shown more easily and which doesn't require substantial digging offwiki and sometimes not even onwiki). What do you think about those concerns, and does such an FOF help or harm?
:As for a finding of fact in that regard, I am not sure of the utility, as FOFs should generally be written with the objective of providing a remedy. What remedy would go with such an FOF? [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||