Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by A. C. Santacruz: Reply |
|||
Line 26:
: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)
::The remedy would be a simple statement that GSoW editors should regard themselves as having a conflict of interest in regard to the work of Sgerbic and GSoW in general. In regard to digging up identities, even if the remedy was effectively was limited to those who are self-disclosed it would be a step forward, and if the proposal for a list to be provided to an independent party was to go forward that would solve any issue. However, I don't believe that GSoW editors are acting in anything but good faith, so I would be very confident that they would follow any remedy without ever needing to be identified. - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 23:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||