Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:54, 22 January 2022

Latest revision as of 00:54, 4 July 2024

(12 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{notice|header=This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched|

{{casenav}}

*To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment]].

*To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement]].

*To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks]].}}{{Casenav|case name=Skepticism and coordinated editing|clerk1=Dreamy Jazz|clerk2=Amortias|clerk3=MJL|draft arb=Barkeep49|draft arb2=Izno|draft arb3=L235|draft arb4=|active=12|inactive=3|recused=0||scope=Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics}}

== Clarification on the scope ==

Line 9 ⟶ 12:

:So I'm confused - the accepts sure looked like the arbs wanted to restrict this to behavior of editors, and the case title is in line with that, but the case scope adds on "editing behavior," which basically expands the case to the entire topic area. We see this on the evidence page - mostly discussions of possible coordinated editing, but also two sections focusing on Roxy. So is the intent to examine behavior of the topic area as a whole now? [[User:GeneralNotability|GeneralNotability]] ([[User talk:GeneralNotability|talk]]) 01:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

::My section on Roxy is from discussions in the recent GSoW/COI/NPOV dust up, just diffs from outside of the few discussions I was outlining the issues with. I assume that keeps it topical. That's why I didn't include their incivility and edit warring over [[Ariel Fernandez]] in the same time period. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

::I will reply in [[#Scope?]]. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

== Should Gronk Oz be added to the case as a party? ==

Line 135 ⟶ 139:

::Not at all. Very helpful. I still would like a definitive answer from an arb, of course. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 17:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

:We had some discussion before opening the case (hence the delay) on the best title and way to scope this case.

:# The scope of the case is {{em|not}} all skepticism topics. This is for two reasons: 1) that's a broader scope than was evidenced as necessary in the request statements, and 2) we did not see a need to revisit [[WP:ARBPS]], which would have a strong overlap with skepticism as a whole.

:# The scope of the case {{em|includes}} GSOW per the case request. This is the predominant reason for the "coordinated editing" in the case name and scope as well as the reference to skepticism in the case name.

:# The scope of the case is not {{em|just}} GSOW. We saw in the case statements that there were other editors whose behavior needed to be examined (later named as parties) that indicated unresolved conduct disputes. This is the predominant reason for the "editing behavior" in the case scope and skepticism in the case name and scope.

:At the end of the day, named parties are directly in scope, in so far as their editing crosses into topics related to skepticism. We are particularly interested in evidence of (problematic) coordinated editing in the topic area (regardless of whether it concerns a named party). Beyond that, we welcome evidence of problematic conduct if it is near the locus of items 2 and 3 above.

:We realize that's not the brightest set of lines. If other evidence indicates other problematic conduct in the area exists, it is reasonable to submit it as part of the arbitration process, part of which is to let people submit what they think is important for the arbitrators to review for issues.

:I hope that sufficiently answers questions of scope. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

::Very clear, and answered all of my questions. Thanks! --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 19:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

== L235 added as a drafter ==

Just wanted to formally announced that {{u|L235}} has joined {{u|Izno}} and I as a drafter for this case. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

== PD extended one week ==

Hi all. Due to the press of business, the drafters are extending the estimate for the posting of our proposed decision in this case by one week. For the Committee, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 03:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

== Added principles of this case ==

Just as a note, I have added the principles from this case to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles]]. Feel free to edit the index to correct any errors I may have put accidentally. Thank you. [[Special:Contributions/2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC|2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC]] ([[User talk:2601:647:5800:1A1F:20EC:5F67:ED8B:DBEC|talk]]) 05:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

== Block of Rp2006 ==

:'''[[Special:Permalink/1230295221#Block of Rp2006|Original discussion]]'''

{{atop|1=Motion adopted. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)}}

{{ivmbox|The Arbitration Committee assumes the block of {{user|Rp2006}}.}}

'''Enacted''' - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 21:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

{{ACMajority|active=10|motion=yes}}

'''Support:'''

#A [[Special:Diff/1229647244&oldid=1229611424|consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE]] recently decided to block Rp2006 for violations of their topic ban coming immediately after the expiration of ArbCom's 1 month block of them. This is an indefinite block, with the first year being Arbitration Enforcement. Given the private evidence we have, I think it makes sense for ArbCom to assume responsibility for this block. I also would like to see extra scrutiny applied to any unblock request rather than having it go through the typical process if Rp2006 were to apply after a year when the AE part of the block expires. {{u|Seraphimblade}}, the blocking administrator (acting on the AE consensus), has [[Special:Diff/1229662830|no objections]] to us doing this. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

# my personal preference would be to call this a ban and let them appeal in 12 months, but this works too --[[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] ^{[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]} 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

# [[User:ToBeFree|&#126; ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 18:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

# Given that there is private information that should be considered when addressing any future unblock requests. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 13:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

# [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 17:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

# [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 08:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

'''Oppose:'''

#

'''Abstain:'''

#

=== Arbitrator views and discussions ===

=== Community discussion ===

As a note, if this passes I'll tack it onto the remedies list for [[WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing|SCE]] in my notes as the previous block against Rp2006 was also under that case and based on what I can grok from the AE thread this block was levied for pretty much the same reasons as the previous. —[[User:Jéské Couriano|<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i>]] [[User talk:Jéské Couriano|<span style="color: #228B22">v^&lowbar;^v</span>]] ^{<small>[[User:Jéské Couriano/AG|threads]] [[User:Jéské Couriano/Decode|critiques]]</small>} 18:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

{{abot}}