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

Revision as of 00:23, 23 January 2022

Revision as of 00:23, 23 January 2022

Line 140:

:# The scope of the case {{em|includes}} GSOW per the case request. This is the predominant reason for the "coordinated editing" in the case name and scope as well as the reference to skepticism in the case name.

:# The scope of the case is not {{em|just}} GSOW. We saw in the case statements that there were other editors whose behavior needed to be examined (later named as parties) that indicated unresolved conduct disputes. This is the predominant reason for the "editing behavior" in the case scope and skepticism in the case name and scope.

:At the end of the day, named parties are directly in scope, in so far as their editing crosses into topics related to skepticism. We are particularly interested in evidence of (problematic) coordinated editing in the topic area (regardless of whether fromit concerns a named party or not). Beyond that, we welcome evidence of problematic conduct if it is near the locus of items 2 and 3 above.

:We realize that's not the brightest set of lines. If other evidence indicates other problematic conduct in the area exists, it is reasonable to submit it as part of the arbitration process, part of which is to let people submit what they think is important for the arbitrators to review for issues.

:I hope that sufficiently answers questions of scope. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)