Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
BilledMammal (talk | contribs) →Sgerbic questions: Correct indentations |
|||
Line 7:
:@[[User:A. C. Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]], John is correct. All of the above can be submitted as evidence. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for the quick replies, {{u|Johnuniq}} and {{u|Barkeep49}} :) [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 15:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
: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)
== Should Gronk Oz be added to the case as a party? ==
| |||