Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Proposed decision: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Comments by Guy Macon: re RfC to Guy |
|||
Line 26:
*:::Thanks, {{u|Izno}}, that's the clarification I needed. As a small aside, perhaps the COI vs anonimity proposed principle I added in the workshop may be useful for y'all to include, judging by some of the comments made by {{u|Opabinia regalis}} throughout her votes. Link for convenience: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism_and_coordinated_editing/Workshop#Anonymity_and_conflicts_of_interest]] [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 07:25, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
*::::Yes, I think that would be a nice principle. There comes a point of diminishing returns though, and that one at best says to me that none of our remedies are going to work perfectly if at all. So I guess future ArbCom might see it and think we might have possibly had a reasonable inkling of the future. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 07:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
*{{u|Guy Macon Alternate Account}}, do note that basically everyone that's commented on that RfC is either a party to this case or have commented on the recent COIN thread and so are involved with the discussion from before the RSN thread. I'd argue there is still not wide enough participation in that RSN RFC to make any conclusions about it.
== Comments by Bilby ==
| |||