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

Revision as of 09:42, 22 January 2022

Revision as of 10:15, 22 January 2022

Line 126:

:::::: 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)

{{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)