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

Revision as of 08:59, 22 January 2022

Latest revision as of 00:54, 4 July 2024

(17 intermediate revisions by 8 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 118 ⟶ 122:

:::::Whether he is a member or not, the character of his actions and the context in which they happen makes me believe that there is no practical difference whether he's a 'card-carrying member' of GSoW or not when determining if his actions are co-ordinated with GSoW members. I wish to analyze that further in the Workshop as part of the evidence analysis but thought it best to do so after the deadline. If your only issue with the evidence provided so far is the Roxy case I think that the current scope fits the case. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 08:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Thanks. Tell me if I am reading the above correctly. As I understand the answer, the scope of this case is "coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing", and the scope is not "anyone editing in skepticism topics", and the arbs want to evaluate whether Roxy has de-facto coordinated with GSoW members. Which seems quite reasonable. Did I get that right?

::::::So what if the decision is "absolutely no co-ordination with GSoW or anyone else, but definitely unacceptable behavior"? In that case does Roxy get arbcom sanctions for the bad behavior or do you refer him to ANI so the arbs can focus on GSoW-related behavior? I suspect that in a case that came back to them from arbcom ANI would give Roxy much harsher sanctions than arbcom would, but ANI sanctions are easier to appeal.

::::::Given the above hypothetical, I can see the appeal of "while {{they are|Roxy the Dog}} in front of us, might as well sanction them", but I can also see the appeal of "We all agree that there is no hint of GSoW coordination so let's not waste time even discussing out-of-scope behavior that ANI can handle just fine."

:::::: Also, there is a possibility of opening the door to gaming the system some time in the future. Let's say I think that User:example is being a real jerk, but ANI disagrees. I see an upcoming My Little Pony arbcom case, make a bogus claim that example is involved in MLP, and post evidence of a bunch of non-MLP wrongdoing. Arbcom decides no MLP involvement but sanctions Example for the unrelated misbehavior. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 09:42, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::I think the scope is more like "Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics." They're have been a number of discussions, none with any clear outcomes. It's clear the community cannot handle this. Every thread becomes a morass, whether or not GSoW is the topic.

:::::::I don't find your example very persuasive. Take, instead, for example a situation where a user takes part in a number of discussions over two months, offering little but personal attacks and incivility. In many of these discussions other editors note that the topic should go before arbcom. The topic ends up at arbcom, and after opening statements saying that one of the reasons there are problems in the topic is that incivility and personal attacks are common. The example user is added as a party.

:::::::There's a pretty clear thread to follow through how things moved along. The community can't address the COI editing, or any other issues in the topic, because attempts are immediately met with attacks. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 10:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

{{od}} From my understanding it is not unusual for Arbcom to give out individual sanctions (e.g. topic bans) in cases such as the one you are describing above. Regarding your example, I think that arbs would quickly dismiss that claim. The only reason why I see analysis of Roxy's actions in the topic area as reasonable within the case's scope is his addition as a party to the case. The same way that I see the diff of my misbehavior that's been added to be warranted and beneficial to the case (although I myself am not connected to GSoW nor engaging in a "witch-hunt"). I think in this case as well it is quite clear that the community wouldn't be able to handle sub-issues going to ANI. I believe this because in the latest ANI thread ("Outing") ''and'' the COIN thread many experienced editors said they believed this should be dealt at arbcom due to how branching and contentious the discussions get, so I'd expect a similar response to say, discussing Roxy's behavior in ANI. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 10:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

:I do think that you asking for the case scope to be clarified is a good initiative, Guy Macon, so I hope I don't sound dismissive in my reply. [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 10:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

::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}}