Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Enterprisey (talk | contribs) →Comments by DGG: Reply |
|||
Line 83:
:::{{tq|I further think arb com could say that any member of the group editing in the field is in a situation of conflict of interest, and must be disclosed}} I do not think this is supported by [[WP:COI]], in multiple ways. First, disclosing a COI is not a ''must''. Second, this position that being a member of the field is enough solely to produce a COI, much less one that is actionable, is one that is extreme and which I faintly recall at least one recent RFC or major community discussion which did not find support for it. ArbCom needs something more firm than that.
:::I think my comment on the principle speaks to the questions to the others, so I won't attempt to answer them :^). [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
:::Just acknowledging that I saw this, and I'm thinking about it. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 09:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
:As the case seems about to close, I will ask one further question:
| |||