Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Scope?: Reply |
→Scope?: Arbs, is the scope of this case is any editing behavior in skepticism topics whether or not the editors are involved in coordinated editing or is the scope of this case is coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing? |
||
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)
== Related discussion ==
[[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 155#Wiki editing organisation]] --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 08:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
== Scope? ==
Line 106 ⟶ 110:
::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)
:::You mean something like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1063342503&diffmode=source this]? I feel you may not be fully aware of what led up to this case. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 02:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
::::I believe that I ''am'' fully aware of what led up to this case.
::::The diff you just posted shows GeneralNotability (who is not an arbitrator) posting on COIN (which is not arbcon) about evidence of Rp2006 having a COI which cannot be posted without outing. Now Rp2006 is named in this case, as is GeneralNotability, and arbcom has the evidence. See [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence#Rp2006 has engaged in WP:SELFCITE]]. All perfectly normal and expected behavior is such cases. Clearly something arbcom has to deal with.
::::Now compare the evidence posted about the behavior of Roxy the Dog. I see all sorts of claims about behavior but unless I am missing something nobody has posted a shred of evidence of GSoW membership or coordination with GSoW. Even if everything said about Roxy is true, why can't they be dealt with at ANI? The admins at ANI have been able to deal with Roxy just fine so far; see the block log at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ARoxy+the+dog].
::::So again, if the scope of this case is any editing behavior in skepticism topics whether or not the editors are involved in coordinated editing, Roxy (and a couple of hundred other people) are in the scope.
::::But if the scope of this case is coordinated editing in skepticism topics and the editing behavior of those doing the coordinated editing, where is the evidence that Roxy has engaged in coordinated editing?
::::Arbs, which of the above is the scope of this case? --[[User:Guy Macon Alternate Account|Guy Macon Alternate Account]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon Alternate Account|talk]]) 08:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
| |||