Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop

General reminder
Hi everyone. Just wanted to mention as a general comment that in my nearly seven years of experience as an arbitrator and arbitration clerk, it is more effective to direct your thoughts to arbitrators or the Committee rather than to other participants in the case. I understand that some back-and-forth may occasionally be helpful on the Workshop as you refine your thoughts, but it's probably not the most helpful to get in a prolonged disagreement with another case participant here. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 11:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The purpose of the workshop is to present possible principles, findings, and remedies to be incorporated in the final decision, it is certainly not just a place to continue feuding that led to the case, and if it gets out of hand arbs may instruct the clerks to intervene to stop further disruption. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Defining "Skepticism" and/or "Scientific Skepticism"
Hello,

I didn't have an initial clear-cut idea on this myself to propose as my own finding of fact, so I was hoping that one or many others would be willing to take up the torch:

What is the exact scope of this case? We have proposed TBANs and proposed DS regimes that are going to need this specific issue defined. It is both extraordinarily elastic (especially with the usual broadly defined aspect) and comes with potential ARBWEATHER consequences. Obviously we have an article on the matter, but it wasn't especially clear for our purposes. - did/do the arbs have a particular definition they are thinking of, that we could work from? Or some ideas on what is clear in and out, but a TBD middle? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh, new keyboard, apologies for not one but two ping typos Nosebagbear (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI @Nosebagbear neither of those pings worked (and I'd recommend pinging drafters with questions). We gave additional information about the scope here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I should indeed have messaged Izno, not 'Eek, apologies to both. As that scope set itself notes it's not the brightest set of lines. I do feel this means that either we need to see if some definition can be made, and then referred to, or anytime someone proposes a remedy based on "skepticism" they need to set out their own lines. Obviously some variance on these aspects is always dealt with either by AE "case law" or Arb clarification requests, but a somewhat clearer framework would be good. I'll see if I can put together a proposal myself. Thanks for the very quick response. --Nosebagbear (talk) 15:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to get an answer to this question for some time, I still don't know. Sgerbic (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I find that the answers from ArbCom about editors who are in scope are reasonably clear, but I also think that the in-scope topic area is very unclear. I think that the original case request made this issue clearer than did the expanded case, but there is a serious need that the final decision be clear and precise about the topic area, or there will be very bad aftereffects following case closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reasons I stuck to the parties, and the discussions that immediately prompted the case itself. There was also a fair dollop of laziness as well, as it was already a fair amount of work assembling all the diffs and such without examining editing patterns and looking at editors' sandboxes for signs of GSoW training. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is where I was asking for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgerbic (talk • contribs) 19:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sgerbic despite your confusion I would say the evidence you've provided both publicly and privately falls squarely with-in scope and is the kind of evidence I would have expected. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I can understand why editors feel unsure of themselves around scope - though as I noted in my reply to Sgerbic despite this uncertainty editors seem to have done just fine with what they've submitted. Defining a scope is tricky business because ArbCom doesn't know all the facts at the start of the case. If we knew all the facts, or enough of them to be confident in what happened, we'd resolve the matter by motion. So for a while this meant ArbCom didn't say any scope and decided to just let people submit what they felt was important and to separate the wheat from the chaff later. And what we saw happening is that cases sprawled and there was a lot of ill will generated among editors, even non-parties, about things being outside the scope and thus inappropriate to include. So we are trying to give a statement of scope. But again we need to do so in a way that still allows evidence we do need to find us. So in this particular case, we didn't see a need for editors to spend their time, or ours, re-examining WP:ARBPS so we did the best we could in writing a statement and providing follow-ups. So in terms of participating in the workshop phase, to the extent that it matters, feel free as Nosebagbear proposes to give your spin on the scope as you propose Principles, Findings of Fact, and Remedies. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Should we be expecting to see any you or Izno doing any workshopping in this case? I've seen it go both ways in past cases, where the drafting arbs took part and put forth some of their own ideas, and some (most?) cases, where they don't put forth anything until the PD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I will note that L235 is now also a drafter. I would suggest I have been workshopping as I've been providing comments and feedback to what others have put forward, I've just not been doing my own proposals. I tend to propose something as an arb in cases where I've had an idea in mind but thought it might need community feedback (and refinement) to know if it was any good. In this case I don't have anything like that (yet) so I haven't. I don't want to speak for Izno or L235 (or any other arb). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * One more quick question. Do you find that typing Izno, your fingers really want to type Inzo instead? I had to try like four times to type Izno. Although I only had to try twice last time, when I just typed it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Trying to remember what order SFR goes in is much more taxing for me :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not hard to please. Any combination of nationalities and root vegetables works fine. BangladeshiNepaleseTaro (talk) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had trouble remembering ACS versus AOC. But then again, I've been called Typofish. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take the AOC comparison any day :D A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 15:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I want to add, more seriously, a thank-you for the feedback about the relevance of the Workshop submissions, and about how ArbCom is thinking about scope over time, from the request phase until the present. Thanks for that, Barkeep49, and please be aware that it helps the community help you when ArbCom gives feedback along the way like that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Changing a Point After It Is Commented on
I would ask that the ArbCom consider, for use in future cases, a general provision that the originator of a workshop point may not reword it after there have been any comments on it. I would strongly suggest that ArbCom require that any changes to a workshop item after it has been commented on be in the form of strikethroughs and insertions. My specific concern illustrates why this is a general concern. An unregistered editor proposed a personal attack parole on RoxyTheDog. I responded sarcastically, because as worded, the remedy appeared to indicate that personal attacks are normally permitted, and that this was taking away the subject editor's privilege of personal attacks. My comment was intended to be sarcastic, and was a response to the specific way that the remedy was worded. The unregistered editor then changed the wording of their remedy. This made my comment no longer make sense. I have struck my comment, because it no longer makes sense. If I had instead said, "This remedy is poorly worded", a rewording would have also rendered my comment nonsensical. So I strongly suggest that the ArbCom prohibit editors from changing their workshop entries, except by way of striking through and inserting. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thoughts. I believe this is already required by policy . I haven't reviewed the specific situation at all but please feel free to direct others' attention to this section. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:L235 - Yes, that says exactly what I thought it would be in order for it to say. Interestingly, this is the second time in three weeks that an editor has made an edit that has changed the meaning of my words on a talk page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=1067343317&oldid=1067343231&diffmode=source .  At least this time it was their own words that they were changing, so that the change to the meaning (or resulting lack thereof) to mine was not intentional.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. I didn't know that I was not supposed to change workshop posts. I thought I was just trying to improve my remedies, based on others' comments. A WP:TROUT is in order. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:44FA:DE9D:609D:CDBA (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Workshop is due to close soon
The Workshop phase is due to close in the next few hours. Editors are encouraged to finalise and post anything left to propose in the workshop. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)