Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 30:
::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)
:::I don't believe that simply by being trained you automatically have a COI with your trainer. Our COI guideline is, in my reading, more nuanced than that. Now I am sympathetic to the fact that the lack of transparency makes it hard to evaluate and causes some level of mistrust to exist where more transparency may not. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
::::It isn't the training per se, but the membership of a non-profit group run by Sgerbic. If I'm the member of a nonprofit, I'd be regarding as having a COI in regard to the actions of that group and the leadership/membership of the organisation. (Which is, clearly, why I don't write about nonprofits which I'm part of). - [[User:Bilby|Bilby]] ([[User talk:Bilby|talk]]) 00:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
== Comments by {username} ==
| |||