Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Clarification on the scope: Reply |
→Scope?: new section |
||
Line 87:
::That's fair. Just thought I'd ask :) [[User:A._C._Santacruz|A. C. Santacruz]] ⁂ [[User talk:A._C._Santacruz|Please ping me!]] 23:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
::Right? What's worse than an arbcom case? A more drawn out arbcom case. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
== Scope? ==
Re: "The scope of this case is: Editing behavior and potential coordinated editing in skepticism topics.":
I read the above as being about coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing.
Some of those who have presented evidence seem to think that the scope includes any editing behavior in skepticism topics whether or not the editors are involved in coordinated editing.
Which is it?
Some of the evidence is simply a list of objectionable edits by a person without any claims that they in any way coordinated their editing with anyone else. In my opinion, such behavior should be handled by an ANI case naming the editor. The reasons given for accepting this case (private evidence and outing concerns) simply don't apply to a lone individual's edits. --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 01:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||