Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Scope?: Reply |
→Scope?: Arbs are a scarce resource. They should not be wasted on anything that can be handled by an ordinary admin at COIN, BLPNB, ANI, etc. |
||
Line 101:
:The same way a clear cut COI case with an arb saying they had received convincing evidence of COI editing would be handled at the COI noticeboard in a discussion naming the editor? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 01:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
::If the evidence of COI is public, then the arb should indeed post it on COIN and let one of our non-arb admins handle it. If instead the evidence is only available to arbcom, then arbcom would have to handle it. Arbs are a scarce resource. They should not be wasted on anything that can be handled by an ordinary admin at COIN, BLPNB, ANI, etc.
::You (and anyone else offering evidence) can help the arbs by making clear whether the editor you are discussing is known to be part of GSoW, that you suspect they are, or that you have no evidence that they are. And of course the arbs may have private evidence and already know whether the editor is part of GSoW even if you and I don't. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||