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

Revision as of 08:59, 22 January 2022

Revision as of 09:42, 22 January 2022

Line 118:

:::::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)