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

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Purpose of the workshop

Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at fair, well-informed decisions. The case Workshop exists so that parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee can post possible components of the final decision for review and comment by others. Components proposed here may be general principles of site policy and procedure, findings of fact about the dispute, remedies to resolve the dispute, and arrangements for remedy enforcement. These are the four types of proposals that can be included in committee final decisions. There are also sections for analysis of /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case. Any user may edit this workshop page; please sign all posts and proposals. Arbitrators will place components they wish to propose be adopted into the final decision on the /Proposed decision page. Only Arbitrators and clerks may edit that page, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Expected standards of behavior

• You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being incivil or engaging in personal attacks, and to respond calmly to allegations against you.
• Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all).

Consequences of inappropriate behavior

• Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator or clerk, without warning.
• Sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may include being banned from particular case pages or from further participation in the case.
• Editors who ignore sanctions issued by arbitrators or clerks may be blocked from editing.
• Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Tryptofish

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, or publishing or promoting original research is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Historicity of Jesus. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

2) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise. This may involve the wider community, if necessary, through dispute resolution mechanisms like noticeboards and Requests for Comment. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally and by respecting the outcomes reached after dispute resolution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Iranian politics. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Not a battleground

3) Wikipedia is not a battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Coordinated editing

4) Requesting that another editor perform an action that, if one would have done it oneself, would have been clearly against policy is meatpuppetry and is a form of gaming the system. While it is possible that more than one editor would have independently chosen to act the same way, attempts to coordinate such behavior is improper on its own as it seeks to subvert the normal consensus building processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Eastern European mailing list, except that I changed the title from "Meatpuppetry" to "Coordinated editing". I based this on the directly relevant sockpuppet policy, rather than on a guideline such as WP:COI or WP:CANVASS, because that makes for a firmer basis from which to derive findings. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The policy on meatpuppetry is incomprehensible. If it is meant to be a policy about coordinated editing, then it is a good idea, but should be written clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's probably a discussion for WT:SOCK rather than here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

5) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to resolve good-faith editorial disputes among editors. The Committee's role does extend to evaluating allegedly improper user conduct, which in serious cases may include persistent non-neutral editing or BLP violations, or a pattern of making unsupported allegations and personal attacks.

In general, the Committee requires that earlier methods of dispute resolution have been attempted before a dispute will be accepted for arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from Manipulation of BLPs, except that I introduced a paragraph break between the two parts. Both conduct-not-content and last-step-in-DR should be highlighted in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Seeing how subsequent discussion has been going, I think it might be reasonable to omit the second paragraph from the decision, but I still see the first paragraph as being central to this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

You could also end the second sentence after "improper user conduct." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of the dispute

1) This dispute centered on the topic of modern scientific skepticism, its proponents, and persons criticized by its proponents. Disputes concerned accusations of coordinated editing, accompanied by a heated and often unpleasant editing environment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This isn't how I see the locus of dispute. It is more about potential COI & seeing if offwiki activities about Wikipedia resulted in any onwiki policy or guideline violations. So coordinated editing, yes, but just a smidge broader than that because of some Wikipedians distrust of anything that's not onwiki/transparent. All that said, I'm not sure if a locus of dispute FoF will be best in this case. Will it help editors understand what's being done or will it just cause more writing along the lines of what we saw with the case scope? I genuinely am not sure. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I feel the locus of the dispute must include concerns regarding disclosed and undisclosed COIs.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 04:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

@Barkeep49: I'm inclined to think that it would be best not to have a locus FoF. I hesitated to propose it (and thought about, instead, just posting that the scope of the case was: verbatim from the case scope). But I agree that it doesn't really make for a net positive. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Editing environment

2) The editing environment in this topic area was frequently marked by bitter disagreements that were unresolved, making it difficult to reach consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

3) Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia (GSoW) is an outside group that seeks members to edit Wikipedia to counteract what they believe are violations of Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view in topics related to skepticism: [1]. For the most part, their edits have contributed positively to content, and editors who have acted incorrectly have been cooperative in fixing the problems. However, there have been instances in which a lack of transparency about coordinated editing among their members has gotten in the way of reaching consensus: [2], [3], [4].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I feel "have been cooperative" is being too positive about their reaction to criticism. Just reading the COIN thread or the Sharon A. Hill article is enough to suggest some GSoW members have been much more cooperative while others barely so.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 04:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish I do not see the evidence for a significant amount of cooperation from GSoW, and would appreciate you linking the diffs or quoting the statements that show that. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

If you're going to say something along the lines of "and editors who have acted incorrectly have been cooperative in fixing the problems" you should have probably provided evidence to that effect. From what I saw, there was a lot of the opposite of that, and "I'll wait to see what someone in authority says." That's partially why we're here. A cooperative "as there have been concerns about my connection to the sources used, or the subject of the article, I'll limit my contributions to the talk page" would have avoided much of this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I realise "on the most part" does, grammatically speaking, apply to both parts of the sentence. However, I think it would be better to rephrase to something like "a majority of editors who have acted incorrectly have been co-operative in fixing the problems, while others have shown only a limited degree of such. However, there have..." Nosebagbear (talk) 11:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My thinking was that the evidence taken as a whole, and particularly the evidence going back some years, does show a significant amount of cooperation from GSoW editors, and I intended "on the most part" to be understood the way that it sounds. And "on the most part" definitely does not mean "all". (The flip side of there having been some non-cooperation is that there was probably some hounding going in the other direction.) My understanding is that allegations of wrongdoing in the Workshop must be backed up by diffs, but allegations of "rightdoing" do not. I suggest that the Arbs evaluate the extent to which there was or was not cooperation, because editors are not going to settle it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Prior dispute resolution

4) Editors have repeatedly attempted to resolve these conflicts at various venues, including but not limited to the Administrators' noticeboard: incidents and Conflict of interest noticeboard. These efforts at dispute resolution were inconclusive. Some editors were left feeling that they had been unfairly targeted and hounded, while others felt that their concerns had not received proper consideration or acknowledgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitration enforcement

5) In the Pseudoscience case, ArbCom has authorized standard discretionary sanctions "for all pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." At no time during the present dispute did editors seek, nor were they advised, to make use of these sanctions at Arbitration Enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

While there may have been miscommunication or conflicting answers regarding discretionary sanctions, it is not the case that editors were never advised of them. I closed a large discussion on this issue at ANI in November, and my closure began with we already have discretionary sanctions for fringe science and pseudo science. As such editors may raise concerns about specific people with evidence at arbitration enforcement and uninvolved administrators will review the request and determine appropriate responses. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1083#Havana_syndrome_and_guerilla_skeptics which was linked in the case request. If editors received conflicting advice after that, the FoF should be more specific in pointing to that evidence. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I was told a number of times that many of the actions or concerns covered by this case and shown in the evidence phase were not covered by those discretionary sanctions, which is why I did not make use of them. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, it doesn't seem to me that these DS would have covered a lot of the issues that brought this about. Is there any indication that pseudoscience DS would apply to incivility in a discussion about COI editing on skeptic and medium articles? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes, I see that for the Havana syndrome issue, but would that apply to self-cite editing on the article of a skeptic? I don't see how that kind of DS would apply. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think this is important to point out, because (outside of matters of private evidence) everything in the case could have been handled within the structured environment of AE, without having had to come to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The fact that editors (from what I understand, multiple editors) were told that they couldn't use existing DS is a good reason to amend the DS, as I propose as a remedy. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

While that may well be the case, @Tryptofish:, it should be specifically included within the finding that editors were told not to use it. Its presence completely shifts it from being a negative finding for those editors to a negative finding for the system. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My reason for proposing this FoF is to justify my proposal to revise the existing DS. The suggestion from Nosebagbear is a good one, thanks, and I have revised (shown with underlining) the proposal by adding "nor were they advised". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: thank you very much for pointing that out, as I had missed it and it's very important here. My proposed FoF clearly needs to be re-thought, and some editors may have some explaining to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm facepalming myself over having linked to the discussion that Wugapodes closed, in my own FoF proposal directly above this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No worries. There's a lot of stuff to go through and it can be easy to overlook things. Thanks for your work sifting through things and making suggestions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

On further reflection, I think it would be best to return my proposal to its original wording, without the underlined part. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I want to withdraw the part that I added and underlined. I realize that this looks kind of ridiculous, but that means the part this is both underlined and struck: what I mean now is that I'm striking it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Discretionary sanctions

1) The discretionary sanctions in pseudoscience are revised as follows, with added text underlined:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to pseudoscience, and fringe science, and modern scientific skepticism and persons connected to it, broadly interpreted. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.

Editors in this topic area who have come from an organized effort off-site must disclose this fact, subject to awareness of this requirement. Editors who wish to report violations of this requirement must not publicly post personal information in violation of the harassment policy; such evidence may instead be submitted privately to the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Initial reaction: I'm not sold on explicitly extending DS into "modern scientific skepticism". For example, how would that have helped prevent or resolve the dispute before us today, or similar ones that may arise in the future? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Such a revision may or may not be appropriate but I do not think evidence was submitted which would justify this change. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

and persons connected to it surely is covered by broadly interpreted, no? Seems like redundant wording. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 01:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

L235, it would have prevented where we are today because someone could have gone to AE and said "Look at these diffs of someone using an article of a BLP to coatrack in every single time that BLP criticized other BLPs, while simultaneously adding significant puffery sourced to non-independent sources [5][6][7]. When a discussion about this was attempted here are diffs of battleground behavior and incivility.[8][9][10][11][12]" Then they'd likely be topic banned, and that problem would be solved. Instead we end up with novel long threads where most people don't care to get involved, likely because there are no word limits or structure and the same people with already entrenched opinions go back and forth. If there were any hint of compromise, or understanding that there are good faith concerns about some of this editing, then the community would have been able to resolve it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The concepts of "this topic area" and "persons connected to scientific skepticism, broadly interpreted" are open to many interpretations. The term is applied to a very broad range of subject areas. For instance, my own GSOW editing has mostly been biographies of medical researchers and astronomers - it is not clear whether they are intended to be included. If so, anybody working on such articles would be included in these sanctions. Any ruling would need to be clear what is in or out.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Scientific skepticism, broadly construed, would be a huge expansion. I would not be comfortable with such a broad expansion. I also fear that it would lead to a significant number of "Border dispute" issues, about what exactly qualifies as "skepticism". How off the mainstream does one have to be to qualify? Additionally, including people means a significant ARBWEATHER aspect where the skepticism makes up only a section of their biographies, sometimes a small one. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@KevinL: It would help because previously editors did not know whether they could use DS in the disputes underlying this case.

As I think the Arbs will be able to see, this is one of those "between a rock and a hard place" situations: is the addition much too much or not nearly enough? In my opinion, there is a need, amply demonstrated by the fact that editors were repeatedly told not to use existing DS, to make clear that there will be DS, going forward, that apply to the topic area of the dispute. I'd be fine with leaving out the part about "and persons connected to it". I initially said on the Evidence page that it would be difficult to define a topic area for DS, but then I self-reverted when I thought that I had done so here ([13]) – but I was probably right the first time. To be brutally honest, I think it's ArbCom's fault for expanding the case scope to skepticism, so now ArbCom has to figure out how to deal with it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Given what Wugapodes astutely pointed out in the section directly above, I think increasingly that this isn't a problem of the system failing to advise editors properly, but rather, of editors not "getting the message". Regardless, I still think it would be helpful to revise the DS in some way, to help make that message more readily understood. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: in a sense, you're right - the original case scope would have made it easier to bring in a DS matching the case, and the expansion makes that harder. That said, since this is now the situation, I think it's now worth us discussing what narrower scope could work. Perhaps something based off the originally proposed case scope? --Nosebagbear (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if one way to do this would be to have DS for "the paranormal". That would sweep-up the topics where GSoW activity has been controversial (psychic "stings", e.g.) neatly, perhaps? Alexbrn (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

About the case scope (as well as the locus of the dispute), I'm increasingly feeling like I just don't know the answer, and it may just be something where the Arbs will have to come up with something that won't please everyone. This is also being discussed on the Workshop talk page, and I'm going to say more about it there. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors reminded

2) Editors active in this topic area are reminded to discuss disputes civilly, and warned that failure to do so is likely to result in sanctions. Editors are also reminded to make use of Arbitration Enforcement.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't know if I will end up proposing, much let supporting, sanctions against individual editors (while I have read evidence as it has come in, I have not yet done the work to make sense of it). So this is more of a philosophical response. Philosophically I agree ArbCom should not be resolving disputes that the community can resolve. However the fact that it's Arbitration Enforcement is germane for me. AE is a delegated forum of ArbCom's. Stuff at AE is ultimately ArbCom's responsibility and it is not a community forum. So while ArbCom might, and often does, ask that AE be tried before coming to the committee directly, that is, for me, an instance of ArbCom prioritizing its time and attention, not because it's out of scope for ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

In regard to the second diff of me Tryptofish provided, it would have also been "lemon squeezy." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

On a more serious note, there is no indication that pseudoscience DS would have, or should have, covered COI/NPOV editing on Susan Gerbic or Ray Hyman. Is having a Las Vegas stage show and some television shows as a medium enough to qualify one as practicing pseudoscience? There's a fair amount of daylight between "The earth is flat because if it were a spinning globe we'd all be thrown off into space, here's my (bad) math." and "I believe I can speak to the spirits of the dead. I can't explain how, or why, but I'm talking to your uncle in heaven right now." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Speaking broadly about my proposals, I have not suggested remedies aimed at individual editors. I believe that much of the submitted evidence is one-sided and overblown when seen in context, although I also recognize that there have been some genuine problems with incivility. However, there has been nothing in public evidence that could not have been addressed via Arbitration Enforcement. I therefore believe strongly that, because ArbCom only handles conduct problems for which other methods of dispute resolution have been exhausted, and AE was never tried, ArbCom should not issue individual sanctions now – nor has it historically been useful to have remedies along the lines of "user admonished" or "user reminded", etc. If, subsequently, Arbitration Enforcement proves ineffective, then ArbCom can consider a clarification and amendment request. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Historically, it has been nothing unusual for ArbCom to issue guidance to AE admins in a case decision, and then have most of the individual editors dealt with at AE. (I'm very familiar with the GMO case. There, a few editors were sanctioned in the final decision, but the dispute continued unabated after the case was closed. Only after a lot more issues were dealt with at AE did the topic area become the peaceful one it has been since.) No question, you and all the Arbs ought to evaluate the evidence for yourselves. But it may be quite appropriate not to take the position that it's here at ArbCom, and so we have to throw the book at somebody. Some Arbs said in accepting the case request that this might be a case where no one is sanctioned, and that remains a possibility to consider seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Adding: Maybe it's not out of scope, per se, but it still might be a bad idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, for whatever it may be worth, here are some things that some editors said to me about it: [14], [15], [16]. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about this overnight, and considering KevinL's initial comment and ping that he, for now, reverted, I want to walk back my contention that ArbCom cannot or must not act. But I'd frame it instead as ArbCom would make a better decision if you do not do it. In any case, the proposed remedy still is useful, regardless of my opinions about why. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by GeneralNotability

Proposed principles

Non-neutral editing, particularly of BLPs

1) An editor may have views or outside interests that affect his or her neutrality in editing in a given topic-area. These may include views creating a bias either in favor of or against persons, institutions, or ideas associated with the topic-area. Whether or not such views or outside interests rise to the level of a conflict of interest, non-neutral or tendentious editing often results where an article is edited primarily by editors who are either affiliated with a controversial person or idea, or by editors who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, are involved in off-wiki disputes with the subject, or are otherwise disdainful of the subject. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#Non-neutral_editing,_particularly_of_BLPs. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manipulation_of_BLPs#Types_of_conflict_of_interest_or_bias would work too, similar point. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Off-wiki communication

2) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper. That such conversations can be, or are, done in secret makes it more difficult to detect but does not reduce the impropriety of holding them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think a principle along these lines is needed. Not sure if we should re-use EEML or write one that focuses a bit more on the facts at play here. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list#Off-wiki_communication, verbatim. Whether or not this principle has been violated, of course, is the nexus of this dispute. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is collaborative

3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and editors are encouraged to work together as long as they do not violate Wikipedia policies by doing so. This collaboration may take place on-wiki or off.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The point I'm trying to get across here is basically "it's okay for people to work together" - after all, we encourage things like edit-a-thons, and I do not want the message of this case to be "don't ever work together without scrupulously documenting your every move". Further tweaking is probably needed. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposals by BilledMammal

Proposed principles

Conflict of interest

1) Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Verbatim from BLP issues on British politics articles BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanctions and circumstances

2) In deciding what sanctions, if any, to impose against a group, the Arbitration Committee will consider the group's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. A group's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of their participation on Wikipedia does not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanctions to be imposed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

With modification from Jytdog BilledMammal (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Promotion

3) Use of Wikipedia for advocacy or promotion is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Modified from gun control. BilledMammal (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia's conflict of interest

1) Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia is found to have a conflict of interest with Susan Gerbic and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As a GSoW member, I accept that I have a relationship with Susan Gerbic which could give rise to a potential COI. However, I do not have, and have never had, any relationship to the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. I expect the same is true for many GSoW members (though I have not surveyed them all).--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How I see it is that Susan Gerbic's advocacy for GSoW to promote CSI, combined with her position as an employee and fellow of CSI, has established a sufficiently close external relationship between GSoW and CSI for there to be a conflict of interest in that area. BilledMammal (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Employee? where does that come from? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what "advocacy for GSoW to promote CSI" you are talking about. In my 8 years in GSoW, I cannot recall Susan ever advocating to me that I should promote CSI. And I don't recall the COIN coming to that conclusion. Or do you mean that just some GSoW members have a COI?--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess employee comes from the consultant role. You can call the professional relationship however you want, but paid or not Sgerbic does have a long-standing professional relationship with CSI, its publications, and its conferences. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should let BilledMammal answer that one. But our article Professional says, A professional is a member of a profession or any person who earns a living from a specified professional activity. So, "paid or not" is essential for that word. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:59, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you mentioned me, I will just say that I plan to let my evidence answer those questions, as engaging in a prolonged back-and-forth seems unlikely to be helpful. BilledMammal (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The exact nature of Susan's relationship to CSI is a red herring. The important point here is whether or not Susan's connection to CSI means GSoW has a COI. Which my response is it doesn't. Individual GSoW editors might have a COI with CSI, but not all of us, and not me. As I have said before elsewhere, I consider myself to have a COI with Susan given how much I interact with her, but not everyone in GSoW would even agree with the claim that they have a COI because of the nature of their personal/academic relationship after they left training: one of mere acquaintances, with some common interests, who interact from time to time. I'm not saying I agree with them, btw, but to the point that there might be a COI, it is sometimes a very "mild" one. VdSV9•♫ 20:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

2) Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia is found to have used Wikipedia for the purpose of promoting the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and associated entities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I think figuring out what are the actions of some members of a group, even its leaders, and its membership as a whole is important. For instance I don't think it would be accurate to say that "ArbCom coordinated to stop vandalism on List of Appalachian dinosaurs" because Primefac and I both edited it in short succession [17]. Substantial evidence of group misconduct would be required for me to support any kind of group remedy (such as the one BilledMammal proposes below). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

In thinking about what does or does not make for a good FoF, I think that, in addition to looking at which population of editors to identify (ie, group or individuals), it's desirable to identify the precise nature of the central conduct problem. When I edit various biomedical science pages (not skeptic-related), I very frequently encounter promotional edits from academic researchers, promoting something of undue weight from their own research. In itself, this isn't something for an ArbCom case, just something to revert and maybe leave a note on the editor's talk page. So here, instead of focusing on promotion, it's more appropriate to look at whether a lack of transparency got in the way of fixing the problem, and even more importantly, whether there was resistance, in the form of edit warring, dissembling, tag-teaming, or WP:IDHT, that made it difficult to fix problems, or whether there was cooperation once the issue was pointed out. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe that my evidence supports this being the actions of the membership as a whole; I partially analysed seven articles and one data source for promotional activities in line with those advocated by Gerbic and despite this narrow scope identified nineteen editors that I am confident are affiliated with GSoW. I don't know how many members they have on the English Wikipedia, but I suspect this is a significant portion. BilledMammal (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the situation. Skeptics want to oppose fringe claims and they have done enough work to realize they can't just add their opinions to articles about how, for example, psychics perform miracles. There are a vast number of woo topics and skeptics want to counter their normalization. A practical way of achieving that is to find a reliable source that documents and refutes fringe ideas. Since very few reliable sources bother with fringe stuff, skeptics find it convenient to use Skeptical Inquirer. Their aim is to promote rationality, not a particular publication. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe I addressed the possibility that they were using it for WP:PARITY in my evidence - and promotional activities by GSoW go beyond the use of SI as a reference. BilledMammal (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a proposed finding of fact and this conclusion would fail to assume good faith and fail to understand what motivates skeptics. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I think by the very virtue of this being an arb-com case, the ideal of good faith in this set of circumstances has broken down. It's also important to note that good faith has limits, as there are people who will both stretch them and operate outside it. Whether that is or is not the case here I don't know and I have not reached an opinion on. But it's not unreasonable to propose the idea that good faith has been broken as part of the analysis of the evidence. Of course conversely, as a somewhat extraordinary claim, it would require sufficient evidence. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nature of contributions

3) Outside of their conflict of interest, Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia's contributions are found to typically be positive and valuable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Conflict of interest management

1) Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia are required to make any edits relating to their conflict of interest, broadly defined, through the edit request process, and to disclose their conflict of interest when engaging in discussions relating to it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I don't see how this remedy is enforcable so I can't support it. The expectation is of course that they disclose their COIs but as can be seen in the Rp2006 case we have no guarantee they will do so even when faced with functionary evidence. Additionally, we have no way of knowing who is a GSoW editor which is why I see it as even less enforceable. I see my proposed remedy below as a more pragmatic approach to the issue caused by the COI in BLPs, and see AfDs/RfCs as a perfectly capable way of resolving the issue in articles about the organizations affected by COI discussed in this case. If one wants to make a remedy related to COI editing itself, it should only be a reminder unless the COI edits are strongly disruptive (in which case the disruption would prompt a remedy rather than the COI itself). COI is not a negative thing intrinsically, just changes how the community expects you to behave. These expectations are neither binding nor should be used punitively, in the interests of anonimity as I describe in my proposed principle on the matter. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Gronk Oz's statement below. However I do note that this is not dealing with an average group of editors where one of them has a COI, but rather a group of editors that collaborate and watch the articles of each other, where one of them has a COI. We have to appreciate the possibility for coordinated editing in this case such that measures to deal with Sgerbic's COI, for example, must account for how she teaches others in the group to use sources she has a COI with. Now, do I think this coordinated editing is either highly likely to be disruptive or is a defining factor of GSoW? Not necessarily. But, the concern is still there. That's why I see any remedies that attempt to lay a COI blanket over all of GSoW as over-reaching in scope and distorting the common understanding of the COI guidelines (while lacking any bite at all due to the non-binding essence of the COI guideline), but do see space and reason for remedies that attempt to tackle the issues of coordinated editing (promotional, advocative, or otherwise) raised in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I believe that the reason this has become a perennial issue is the efforts by GSoW to promote CSI and other related entities, and that to resolve said issue this promotion needs to be addressed while causing minimal interference with their positive and valuable contributions; I believe this proposed remedy would do that. BilledMammal (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about how GSoW members who have had limited involvement with that as distinct from their general wikipedia editing would end up linked in here, despite potentially having no link to either of the COI parties named. It's not at all clear to me that GSoW is sufficiently a cohesive body to hit everyone with any tie to them with the same level of restrictions. Additionally, how does the scope of this handle actions by CSI. Is it just writing about CSI (in which case its small enough a restriction to be less concerned about my first point), or does CSI weighing in on a topic mean that topic now falls under the COI? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My intent was that it would cover CSI and entities connected to it, like CSICon, but CSI weighing in on a topic wouldn't make the topic fall under the COI; that would be far too broad. The wording might need some improvement to make that clear. BilledMammal (talk) 12:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There may not be a sufficient reason to define the group of editors affected by this remedy as being all GSoW members and no one else. It may really be just a subset of GSoW, along with editors who, in the future, may come here from other skeptic organizations. The defining feature may be having come from an external organization, rather than from this one organization. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Given we can't know the exact membership, I don't see how we can define a subset. But more importantly, this is like any organisation - members of an organisation have a COI in regard to the organisation's activities. This doesn't mean that those members have a COI in everything they do on WP, and it doesn't say that they have done anything wrong - it simply says that if they are part of an organisation, they need to consider that they have a COI when acting in areas related to that organisation. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Bilby, this needs to be more explicit over what is meant by "their conflict of interest, broadly defined". Each member of an organization does not have a COI with the activities of everybody else who belongs to the same organization. Even with the activities of the high-profile leader of that organization. Each person has their own COIs arising from any number or relationships (I list over a dozen on my User page), and those need to be managed seriously. But if it is proposed to add some presumed COI based on what a "friend of a friend" does then it is stretching the concept of a relationship too thin.--Gronk Oz (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an incredibly toothless proposal, and you are objecting? Ok. I'll propose something more specific, but saying "GSoW members should follow WP:COI" doesn't seem overly complicated. - Bilby (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Bilby, I am not objecting, I'm asking for more clarity. Everybody seems to have their own, different, idea of what is in the scope of "skeptic topics" or the COI being discussed here. So in order to have a meaningful discussion, I think we first need to spell out just what we are discussing.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, we have many policies that are difficult to enforce - it is hard to detect socks, for example, just as it is difficult to detect meatpuppetry and off-wiki harassment. But we can act when we detect it. In this case, it may be hard to recognise when someone is in GSoW, but we can say we expect certain standards of editors, and if we identify that they fail them we can act on that basis. At times I am opposed to unenforceable policies, but that is when the policies also have a secondary negative effect. If there is no significant negative, a policy which is hard to enforce may still be better than no policy. - Bilby (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My impression is that this is valid for all editors, "Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia" should be "editors with a conflict of interest", matching COI/PAID/DISCLOSE policy. There also is no compelling evidence that all GSoW members would have a special conflict of interest, an assumption the text makes. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by A. C. Santacruz

Proposed principles

Non-neutral editing, particularly of BLPs

1) An editor may have views or outside interests that affect his or her neutrality in editing in a given topic-area. These may include views creating a bias either in favor of or against persons, institutions, or ideas associated with the topic-area. Whether or not such views or outside interests rise to the level of a conflict of interest, non-neutral or tendentious editing often results where an article is edited primarily by editors who are either affiliated with a controversial person or idea, or by editors who are avowed rivals or enemies of the subject, are involved in off-wiki disputes with the subject, or are otherwise disdainful of the subject. Thus, editors who have a strongly negative view regarding the subject of an article, just like editors with a strongly positive view of the subject, should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally if they choose to edit it at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics#Non-neutral editing, particularly of BLPs. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate I'm not sure I entirely understand what your criticism is, and would appreciate if you could rephrase your comment. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is verbose, vague and with flawed premises. Disdain is also alleged but is unlikely. If this is skepticism/reality-based activism, the goal would be to expose specific tenets and false claims, not demonize or attack specific people. This doesn't mean that BLP and BLPRS are not potential concerns. —PaleoNeonate – 04:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Tag-team editing

2) Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence#Tag-team editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing

3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive editing that frustrates proper editorial processes or discussions may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Tendentious editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Check before reverting

4) In the spirit of building the encyclopedia, when faced with potential unhelpful edits, the onus is on the reverter to assume good faith and check if the edits are actually unhelpful before reverting.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GiantSnowman#Check before reverting, without the rollback references and case specifics.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Anonymity and conflicts of interest

5) Wikipedia's policies allowing anonymous editing while discouraging conflicts of interest create a tension that necessarily is imperfectly resolved. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high degree of sensitivity to the competing concerns.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This seems like the right kind of principle (maybe even the exact right principle?) to describe an issue in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar#Anonymity and conflicts of interest. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Battlefield conduct

6) Wikipedia is a reference work, not a battlefield. Each and every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Borderline personal attacks and edit-warring are incompatible with this spirit. Use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels is extremely disruptive, flies directly in the face of our key policies and goals, and is prohibited. Editors who are unable to resolve their personal or ideological differences are expected to keep mutual contact to a minimum. If battling editors fail to disengage, they may be compelled to do so through the imposition of restrictions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Verbatim from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Battlefield conduct. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Roxy the dog and Rp2006 have reverted in bad faith

1) Roxy the dog and Rp2006 have reverted edits without properly checking if they were unhelpful or discussing the merits of their analysis.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See diffs 1, 9, and 10 in my evidence page.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Tryptofish I did most of the editing. However, I actually gave the justifications for my edit and made multiple attempts over multiple weeks to try and engage them in discussion, which they did not accept. Additionally, the fact that I did more reverting does not mean that they thus properly checked my reasoning for the original edit, and such bringing up I did more reverting here is in my opinion a red herring (in good faith, as Tryptofish is attempting to maintain a neutral case resolution, which is greatly appreciated). My proposed finding thus, in my opinion, still holds. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate what exactly is your criteria for reverting without checking? My original edit is this one, and my justification is added here. I mentioned this justification here, which Roxy ignored later in this edit. I strongly believe that Roxy and Rp were reverting due to previous animosity between us rather than the content of the edit or the justifications, with them saying weeks later that they didn't read my justifications "point by point", or seemingly at all (see for example Roxy's edsum saying "return to well-sourced version" when most of my edit consisted of MOS fixes).

Comment by others:

Per my evidence, it was actually ACS who did most of the reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This should be demonstrated using more than a few select diffs. Everyone could also have done so at times, not meaning much. Not necessarily in relation to these diffs but a useful example: citing PRESERVE is common but no evidence that ONUS, DUE or even CITE were met and a patroller will tend to revert and move-on. —PaleoNeonate – 05:04, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the dog, Sgerbic, and Rp2006 have harassed A. C. Santacruz

2) Roxy the dog, Sgerbic, and Rp2006 have been uncivil towards, harassed, and made personal attacks to A. C. Santacruz (A. C. Santacruz's evidence page).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nosebagbear I haven't reverted their edits without reading the justification for them [18][19][20], nor accused them of bad faith or libel for the use of neutrally-worded template notices[21][22], nor called them names (e.g. Wikipedia's NSA agent[23], detective[24], saying I went "ape at ANI"[25], etc.[26]), made accusations without evidence for their motives for editing [27][28][29][30] or behaviour [31][32][33], or commented on what I see as significant contributions on their user page[34]. More generally, they've referred to my efforts as a witch-hunt[35][36], lynch-mob[37], the night of long knives[38], made references to McCarthyism (the sentence before the wife-beating question above is a reference to this), and gone to my talk page just to write "Fascinating!" on related discussions [39]. From what I can tell the worst I've done is called Roxy a "dear" once[40], said "what the fuck?" once [41][42], made understandable mistakes in a nuanced OUTING situations (which I promptly asked to be revdel'd and did my utter best to fix) as a new editor very inexperienced with such complex COI and OUTING cases (where undisclosed COI-affected editors talk about wiki edits off-wiki), and asked what others believe are uncivil questions (a fair accusation, I guess) on Rp2006's talk page regarding his relationship with Sharon A. Hill [43]. Hell, if they've been just uncivil I don't know what burden of proof one would even need to call anything a personal attack or harassment. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Which evidence is relevant for this? Do those diffs sufficiently clarify why it's harassment in this one and incivility below (obviously that's completely possible, I just want to check it would be made clearcut) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: I'm certainly satisfied now the diffs are there that's there's enough for the arbs to make that judgement off - it was more a request to make your differences and nuances supported by the diffs that, at the time, hadn't been added (and unlike the one above, weren't in a "pending" condition) --Nosebagbear (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz has been uncivil towards Roxy the dog, Sgerbic, and Rp2006

3) A. C. Santacruz has similarly been uncivil towards Roxy the dog, Sgerbic, and Rp2006 (Rp2006 and Tryptofish's evidence pages).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Promotion by the Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

4) Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia has used Wikipedia for the promotion of the Center for Inquiry and related publications, conferences, and individuals. More broadly, Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia has used Wikipedia for the professional promotion of scientific skeptic people. (A. C. Santacruz, GeneralNotability, Schazjmd, and BilledMammal's evidence sections as well as diffs presented in the public summary of private evidence).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is similar to BilledMammal's proposed finding but I don't think their proposal is as complete, as it does not cover the proven promotion of those that are not necessarily associated with CFI (see second video of my evidence page as well as the many pages created in the private evidence that do not have a professional relationship with CFI except maybe doing conference speeches). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 11:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sgerbic circumventing original research guidelines

5) Sgerbic has used her close relationship with skeptic publications in order to create articles for the explicit purpose of being used as sources in Wikipedia articles in order to publish her original thoughts on others' BLPs and elsewhere.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

See the first video in my evidence section as well as Bilby and Schazjmd's evidence pages. From the video, I can't give my opinion on Wikipedia, but I can through our spokespeople— I can give an opinion on what, you know, how I feel about a topic and so on. So I'm writing through other people but I need that content first from the JREF or from CFI or from Ben Radford or whoever. But I need the content first and then I can meet a way of finding it. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Roxy the dog and Rp2006 warned

1) Roxy the dog and Rp2006 are warned not to revert without checking if edits are unhelpful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I proposed this just because of how large the proportion of their edits consisting of reverts is. I understand that dealing with fringe for many years as well as our animosity can make one hesitate to assume good faith, so I thought anything more than a warning was out of order, but due to how much reverting they do I thought they should be given a formal warning. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Roxy the dog, Rp2006, and A. C. Santacruz banned from interacting

2) Roxy the dog and Rp2006 are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, A. C. Santacruz (and vice-versa) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I was going to propose a one-way interaction ban but thought it unfair. However, the level of incivility and wholesale rejection of my good-faith edits, PAs, belittling behaviour, and stone-walling throughout the wiki is completely disruptive and a terrible experience for myself, almost leading me to stop editing the relevant articles for good. I assume they see their actions as justified as I saw mine, but find it hard myself to justify their actions under good faith. I don't think Sgerbic merits an i-ban with me as I think we only talk to each other in relation to GSoW discussions and do not see the point in enacting a punitive measure here. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 03:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Multiple editors topic-banned

2) Sgerbic, Rp2006, Roxy the dog, Neerlandse Leeuw, Wyatt Tyrone Smith, Drobertpowell et al. are indefinitely topic-banned from editing BLPs relating to scientific skepticism and pseudoscience, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I don't think it appropriate to sanction editors who are not parties to the case (outside of very rare circumstances where misbehavior develops during a case and even then the person should be added at that point as a party) and I did not (and do not) see sufficient evidence to add more parties. Beyond that, as noted, I am not convinced any formal sanction (i.e. something more than a warning or reminder) is justified by the evidence presented. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Can't figure out who to list or not, but thought I'd just add et al. and let other editors/arbs/clerks comment who should be included here. The reason why I see this as justified is the advocacy editing (all), promotional mindset(GSoW), purposefully-written pieces to add original research to articles (Sgerbic), tag-team behaviour negatively affecting the neutrality of BLPs (all) that has consistently continued over years. I feel very strongly that Sgerbic and Rp2006 are the worst offenders when it comes to this issue, but believe the others also have negatively affected BLPs (whether by coordinated edits or otherwise does not affect the fact they have). This can be seen in my, SFR, Vaticidalprophet, Bilby, Schazjmd, and BilledMammal's evidence pages. Whether private evidence supports the concerns leading me to propose this remedy is for the arbs to decide. I want to remind others that remedies are meant to be preventative not punitive, and that this is the most specific topic ban I can think of that can prevent further harm on these articles while still allowing them to combat fringe on other articles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding being "one side", there is no evidence brought up that the side of this dispute which includes me has negatively edited BLPs described by my proposed remedy. This remedy can of course be expanded to us if that is the case, and I have no problem with that if the arbs believe we merit inclusion. Regarding being only BLPs, I thought this was the most specific ban that would accomodate the majority of issues brought up during the evidence phase. One exception that greatly concerns me is the prominent placing of wikilinks to skeptics in non-BLPs (e.g. the cupping therapy example Sgerbic describes in the second video I link in my evidence) for promotional and advertising purposes. However, as these tend to be only a few sentences in each article where this is an issue, I strongly believe expanding the scope of the ban would be unnecessary as RfCs and other avenues of community discussion should be capable enough of resolving these concerns by either removing, rewording, moving within the page the problematic sentences. I am unsure what to do about this ban applying to editors that aren't named parties in this case. I trust the arbs to know how to go about with this remedy if they believe it is appropriate (IIRC by adding the editors as named parties and allowing them to defend themselves before implementing any sanctions). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression, from what I read, that the remedies could include a topic ban but that all such remedies had to have a specified duration, not "indefinite". Was I wrong? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The indefinite wording has been used in other cases from the past few years. Note also that there is always a specified duration for these kinds of bans after which one can appeal the remedy. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

A problem here is how the case scope was expanded, and how to assess who should or should not be a named party. And should it be only one "side"? Is there a good reason for it to be only BLPs? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I must have missed something big, here. Why is this a proposal? I don't see the reason why any of those people should be topic-banned, much less indefinitely topic-banned, and we would need very good reasons given for each and every one of them. VdSV9•♫ 20:43, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The reasons given as a justification for a topic ban on a number of editors are ill-defined or not supported by the evidence presented as part of this process. The scope of the ban ("scientific skepticism and pseudoscience, broadly construed") is elastic, giving in effect anyone the ability to track one's edits and harass them over a number of articles. I see better editors than I on this list, so I have to assume I'll end up being on it too, either initially or through requests to expand it. Robincantin (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This would be tantamount to a complete site ban for those users who are only interested in that topic. (If the same thing happened to me, it would be the end of my Wikipedia editing.) And it would have a chilling effect because with that reasoning, all users who resist PROFRINGE edits could be removed from the game because they obviously have a "skeptic POV", thus giving PROFRINGE editors free reign. Very, very bad idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• As with my comment on the DS proposed above, there are two major flaws here: "scientific skepticism" is a very variable term, one that we really need a specific set of findings of fact on so that everyone is playing off the same hymnsheet, and there are ARBWEATHER issues. A significant number of individuals have small aspects under this realm. For example, this TBAN could prohibit the editors from Trump's article, even if they were in good standing on AP2. I make no comment on whether the individuals named have enough evidence to warrant a sanction, just that this sanction won't work. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• After quickly looking at Evidence, it seems that behavior by users A. C. Santacruz, Rp2006 and Roxy the dog has been to some degree problematic, but I am not sure if it warrants topic bans. This is something for arbitrators to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by User:ScottishFinnishRadish

Proposed findings of fact

Rp2006 self-citing and COI editing

1) Rp2006 engaged in self-citing, and cited sources with which they have a COI without providing a disclosure.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Bilby: diffs provided to committee are available on the evidence or case request pages. So if it's not in one of those places, ArbCom doesn't have it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: if the evidence included an onwiki link it was included in our summary. The links there lack any context/explanation and also any information that would OUT someone so it's definitely an incomplete picture of what someone is suggesting they mean. But if a diff is not in that list, it is not evidence in this case. I should have said this in my first reply, but this is no comment about Rp2006's identity nor is it a comment on what I think about this proposed FoF. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Dancing around the exact nature of the COI due to outing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, I've been thinking about remedies, and I'm not really sure what I'd really go with. There's the old "1a) Remind, 1b) Admonish, 1c) Topic ban, 1d) Block" setup, and see where consensus falls. I don't really think, however, my adding remedies will really add much for arbcom, since it's generally always the same options. For Sgerbic a topic ban on people and organizations related to CSI/SI/GSoW would probably be decent, since that allows her productive editing to continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If I write for publication A, and another writer for publication A engages in sting operations on BLP A, and then I cite that writer's work from publication A, that is COI editing. If I were to cite publication A in an article about someone who writes for publication A, that would also be COI editing.

Would we be okay with an employee of Fox News citing a Fox News piece in an article about a Fox News employee? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

the question here would be - is it really self-citing to revert the contentious removal of a huge chunk of an article where one's work has been used as a reference? Yes, you're responsible for the content of your edits. Also, that's clear as day COI editing, let someone else make the revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources we're dealing with aren't peer reviewed journals, and it's not just simply citing the source. It's citing the source in the article of another who writes for the source to puff up the article. It's using a source you write for to insert every critical thing another writer said about another BLP in the writer's article and the BLP's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have a general question pertaining to all of the FoF proposals here, and not specific to this one. I note that (at least so far) there are no proposed Remedies. Normally, ArbCom includes findings of improper conduct of specific editors only to support remedies directed against those editors. Findings that are unaccompanied by remedies seem to make their way into final decisions only when the voting is split, and not by design. It's hard for me to tell where the proposed finding here are intended to result in individual sanctions, warnings, or just general restrictions or reminders. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

These are two separate FoFs. I'll comment leaving aside the outing concerns, or assuming that the identity of the user has been correctly inferred. For the first one, that there has been SELFCITE: the question here would be - is it really self-citing to revert the contentious removal of a huge chunk of an article where one's work has been used as a reference? Maybe, in a way, arguably, but probably not. The user didn't add the content to the article, so I don't think this accusation has very firm ground to stand on. In such a grey area, if the FoF turns out positive - which would surprise me -, I think it would be safe to assume it was a good faith mistake, and also leave open the possibility of WP:IAR.

For the second one, that there has been citing of sources with which one has a COI, again, very questionable. WP:COI is all about subjects, not about sources, except in the case of WP:SELFCITE - or have I missed something? Would a columnist of an RS journal need to disclose a COI were they to use that journal as a reference? Never heard of this before. This is an accusation of commiting a non-crime.

TBH, and I hope I'm not breaking decorum by saying this, but this looks a lot like a case of "throwing a lot of stuff at a wall to see if something sticks".VdSV9•♫ 19:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Withdrawn statement and follow-up discussion

In regard to SELFCITE, there has been too much focus on an edge case - the reality is that Rp2006 has directly added citations to their own work many times, and this information appears to have been provided to ArbCom. This has very little to do with the one instance of reverting, and was a point of frustration for me - that whole COIN thread could have ended any time with a simple statement that Rp2006 would not in the future add sources to which they had a direct COI, but instead there was an insistance of arguing the one case instead of accepting the bigger problem behind it. - Bilby (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC) I have been trying to stay away from this nonsense, but you have gone too far now: "...the reality is that Rp2006 has "directly added citations to their own work many times, and this information appears to have been provided to ArbCom. Really? I am not aware. You have gone too far. Please retract this unfounded accusation and apologize. Rp2006 (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC) I apologise for saying that it has been provided to ArbCom - I thought I saw a reference to that, but what I saw was the mention of the ticket that was raised by GeneralNotability. Additional evidence may, or may not, have been provided to ArbCom, but as it was not clearly stated in their summary I don't know if it was. - Bilby (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC) @Barkeep49: given that some of the evidence involving Rp2006 involves evidence that potentially outs them, is it possible that the evidence that Bilby is referring to is private? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC) So you believe Bilby has evidence about me which I do not know about? Rp2006 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC) Bilby I have seen no accusation regarding me being guilty of "many SELFCITE violations". Are you referring to this? That does not say that I "added citations to [my] own work many times." This refers to "credible" COI violations. Your claim is of repeated SELFCITE, and you have no evidence of this. Not even a hint to such a thing exists AFAIK. If you have such, please provide it here, or as I asked, retract your statement. BTW, so yes, all of this drama is indeed all about an edge case because one editor did not get their way on their schedule. Rp2006 (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC) I had assumed that this would have been sent to ArbCom, but as it seems not I don't want to poison the process by sneaking in new evidence during the workshop phase. - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC) So, to be clear, you are sticking with your original accusation: "the reality is that Rp2006 has directly added citations to their own work many times" You are just backing off on claiming there has been evidence submitted of this, but now you are alleging that you have some that could be added, but you don't just want to poison the process? Do I have that right? I believe this needs to be brought to admin attention now. @Johnuniq: Thoughts? Rp2006 (talk) 02:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would ask whether such a COI (citing an RS's other articles of which one is not a contributor or editor, when one has formerly contributed unrelated articles to that same RS). If I am a contributing author in a peer-reviewed study in Science, am I also discouraged from using unrelated Science articles as sources? Seems to me this is a pretty indirect connection, and one which does not, in my book, fall under a COI. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006 battleground and incivility

2) Rp2006 promoted a battleground environment in the skeptic topic area and was uncivil.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Sgerbic COI and promotional editing

3) Sgerbic has edited to promote sources with which she has a COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence given, particularly her own articles and talks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rp2006 engaged in NPOV editing of BLPs

4) Rp2006 has engaged in NPOV editing to create unduly negative articles on ideological opponents, and puff pieces on ideological allies, often using sources with which they have a COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence, again, minding the outing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Discussions in the skeptic topic area are battlegrounds

5) Discussions in the skeptic topic area are full of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, which make them a toxic battleground.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Roxy the dog was incivil

6) Roxy the dog's contributions in recent discussions dealing with GSoW and Rp2006 were almost uniformly incivil and assumed bad faith the majority of the time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I adjusted this, per Tryptofish's objection. I made a quick tally of their 19 contributions to discussions about GSoW and RP2006, and four of them were not incivility or assuming bad faith. 80% isn't quite "near universal" but it is a majority. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If the arbs feel like using this FoF, I'm sure they're capable of rewording to make it clear it was incivility in the discussions, not targeted at GSoW or Rp2006. Also, I'm sure they'll review the diffs and come to their own conclusions about the severity of the incivility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think it's impossible to deny that Roxy has been incivil, given the evidence. But I think "almost uniformly" would be going too far for an FoF. I've shown in my evidence (and it was also in the withdrawn evidence from TrangaBellam) that there was frequently a context. Also, I want the Arbs to really look at every diff about this, at least if you actually are considering a finding about Roxy, and evaluate how many of them (undeniably some) really fit the bill, and how many are a case of "throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I also want to say that, as I read the discussions from which the diffs come, there was a considerable amount of incivility from other editors who are not named parties to this case. At the end of the case request phase, ArbCom decided to expand the scope from GSoW to skepticism and to add SFR and Roxy as parties. The rationale for adding them seems to me to be based on a preliminary reading of SFR's posting in the case request. Thus, the choice to single out Roxy from among at least three or so editors rests to a very large extent on the reading of SFR's case request posting. I want ArbCom to consider very carefully whether singling out Roxy in the final decision would be an arbitrary case of making an example of one user. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate, at least up to a point, the revision of the language. But I also think that any calculation that gets to 80% (or 70% or whatever) comes with a big necessity for the Arbs to check for themselves and not take it on face value. Also, I just noticed that the current wording unintentionally makes it sound like the incivility was directed at GSoW and Rp2006. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Rp2006 frequently violated BLP

7) Rp2006 included unsourced negative information in BLPs, restored unsourced negative information when it was removed, and referred to BLPs negatively on their user page and article talk pages. They used articles on skeptics to document the skeptics' attacks and critiques of other BLP subjects, bypassing BLP sourcing requirements.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per my evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Skepticism is the house POV

8) Skepticism is, and should be, the house POV of Wikipedia. Because of this, many editors assume bad faith when they see editing that they believe goes against this POV, and are willing to overlook poor editing on the part of those upholding the skeptic POV.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is half a principle, but I'm putting it here because it is the main reason this is at arbcom. If the type of editing shown in the evidence, and provided in discussions before the case came to arbcom, were of almost any other POV it would have been stamped out immediately.

If an editor that wrote for a reliable conservative outlet wrote hit pieces and ran stings on liberal politicians, and trained people to add them as sources to articles, they'd be dealt with almost immediately. If other people with a COI regarding that source were using those stings and hit pieces as sources in the articles of ideological opponents we'd be up in arms. We shouldn't be treating this differently just because we all agree people can't talk to the dead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is a very interesting point, one that might, perhaps, be a good one for ArbCom to talk about. In my evidence, I linked to this discussion, and ArbCom needs to remember to consider that context, as well as the context here. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a hopelessly vague and un-useful principle. What is meant by "skepticism", and by "the house POV"? The "house POV" (that is, the default stance) of any Wikipedia article is that of the best available reliable sources. On a topic like homeopathy (for instance), the best available sources regard it as pseudoscientific; Wikipedia reflects those sources. On a topic like climate change, the best available sources describe it as an evident scientific reality, so self-styled "skeptics" are appropriately described as denialists. It would be more useful to focus on our stated goal of accurately reflecting the best available sources, and to identify instances where we've failed to do so, or where editors have refused to do so. MastCell ^Talk 01:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

MastCell makes excellent points. When I say that it's "interesting" and that ArbCom might "talk about it", I'm not saying that this should be in the decision as written. I'm just saying it should be addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Sgerbic topic banned

1) Sgerbic is indefinitely topic banned from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, its publications, and related people, narrowly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A narrowly defined topic ban to prevent COI editing, but allow the rest of her productive editing in the topic area. Per my response to Tryptofish above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Considering the example of Gerbic instructing GSoW editors to create articles to promote the seventeenth European Skeptics Congress, hosted by the European Council of Skeptical Organisations which CSI was involved in creating, and with Gerbic's trip to attend the congress appearing to have been funded by organizations within the European Council of Skeptical Organisations; I don't believe that this proposal is sufficiently broad to prevent that COI editing. BilledMammal (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I can't find a record under that name - would you mind pointing me to where the evidence is please?--Gronk Oz (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

2a) The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions apply to the topics of psychics, mediums, scientific skeptics and such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

2b) The Arbitration Committee clarifies that the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions do not apply to the topics of psychics, mediums, scientific skeptics and such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We need an answer, one way or another, if existing discretionary sanctions apply to these topics, some of these topics, or none of these topics. This will obviously be moot if Tryptofish's remedy is adopted, or some other DS regime is established. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't get paid enough to define the topic areas that should be covered, thus the "and such." Maybe one day I'll make arbcom money, but until then they have to make the tough decisions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely they at least get a 401K match?! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As with all the other ways in which it has proven difficult to define a topic area, I think that "and such" would be a non-starter for the final decision. But it's fine as a discussion-starter, and I like being able to see the (a) and (b) versions side-by-side. If ArbCom does not want to go either way on this point, an alternative would be to reaffirm (in a Principle) that you don't do content disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

SFR, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you are already making ArbCom money. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposals by User:Geogene

Proposed principles

Avoiding apparent impropriety

1) All editors should strive to avoid conduct that might appear at first sight to violate policy. Examples include an editor repeatedly editing in apparent coordination with other editors in circumstances which might give rise to reasonable but inaccurate suspicions of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Modified from Cold Fusion (2009) [44] Geogene (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Presumption of coordination

2) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Excerpt from EEML (2009) [45] Geogene (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Enlisting assistance off-wiki

3) Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. Recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining. Sanctions have been applied to editors of longer standing who have not, in the opinion of Wikipedia's administrative bodies, consistently exercised independent judgment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Abridged from the Sockpuppetry policy at WP:CRONY Geogene (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

House POVs

4) ArbCom is unable to declare, recognize, or favor claims to any "House POV", because ArbCom lacks the power to decide content disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Identification of GSoW accounts

1) Undisclosed GSoW accounts can be identified through behavioral evidence.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Disruption of the Kenny Biddle AfD

2) Multiple GSoW accounts engaged in block voting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[46] Geogene (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This AfD was sent as a notification from WikiProject Skepticism ([47]). Is there anything to indicate that people were motivated to vote by GSoW rather than organically?--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Disruption of the Dybbuk Box AfD

3) GSoW accounts engaged in block voting at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Dybbuk_box

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[48] Geogene (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the evidence phase has closed Geogene, and I do not recall you mentioning this at that stage. I apologize if I missed discussion of the Dybbuk Box AfD. Sgerbic (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The link provided by Geogene does not mention the Dybbuk Box. Is there any evidence to support this claim?

This AfD was sent as a notification from WikiProject Skepticism ([49]). Is there anything to indicate that people were motivated to vote by GSoW rather than organically?--Gronk Oz (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Deceptive remark by Rp2006

4) In the Dybbuk Box AfD, Rp2006 made an intentionally misleading remark about how he became aware of Dybbuk Box article, in which he has a COI.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The specific type of COI here is left intentionally vague. Geogene (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So much for assuming good faith. Geogene knows that whatever remark he claims I made (with no presented evidence) was "intentionally misleading." And where is it stated that I have a COI with that article? So once again in this Workshop, people are just making up whatever they can imagine to disparage me, and stating it as fact. Why is this allowed? Notifying @Johnuniq: Rp2006 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Rp2006 has attempted to hide his apparent conflict of interest

5) In the midst of the current GSoW controversy, Rp2006 took steps to try to make one aspect of his apparent COI less obvious.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

[50], [51]. The specific type of COI here is left intentionally vague. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The Outing policy doesn't allow any commentary on it. Geogene (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The diffs provided by Geogene do not seem to have any relation to a COI, no matter how vague. Can you spell out how they are relevant?--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Bilby

Proposed principles

Conflicts of Interest

1) Editors are considered to have a conflict of interest if they contribute to Wikipedia in order to promote their own interests, or those of other individuals or groups, and if advancing those interests is more important to them than advancing the aims of Wikipedia.

Editors do not have a conflict of interest merely because they have personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic, nor because they are members of or affiliated with a group of individuals with personal or professional interest or expertise in a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity. Useful as this is to be a central concern, and reflects a distinction drawn by Shibbolethink, while also making it clear that COIs can apply through a membership of a group. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope of Conflicts of Interest

2) Editors with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly. While most conflicts of interest relate to the potential for unduly positive editing, the conflict of interest guideline also applies to conflicts that could cause unduly negative editing. Editors should avoid editing in areas where they have a negative conflict of interest, as it undermines public confidence in the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. The argument here is that there have been COIs to include negative material as well as COIs related to including positive material. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Biographical content

3) The Biographies of living persons ("BLP") policy applies not only to biographical articles but to all edits about living people in all pages within the encyclopedia. All such edits must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed by reliable sources, avoiding self-published material. Poorly sourced or unsourced controversial material must be removed immediately, and may not be reinserted without appropriate sourcing. Biographical articles should not be used as coatracks to describe events or circumstances in which the subject is peripherally or slightly involved, nor to give undue weight to events or circumstances relevant to the subject. Failure to adhere to the BLP policy may result in deletion of material, editing restrictions, blocks or even bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Much of this relates to editing BLPs, so a clear statement might be useful. Trimmed slightly from the original. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Due and undue weight

4) Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Taken from WP:UNDUE. My particular concern is that the process of undue weight breaks down when the same people control the sources and write the articles, creating a problem with COI/BLP/Undue. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Off-wiki conflicts

1) Sgerbic has been involved in off-wiki actions to discredit opponents, including running sting operations, writing negative articles about opponents, and organising for others to write negative articles against her opponents.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sgerbic is very open about this, so I don't think it is controversial. It relates to the second principal above - being involved in off-wiki controversies. By "opponents" I'm referring to "idealogical opponents" - aka mediums and others who Sgerbic opposes. Evidence: stings, campaigning, working with other publications and Schazjmd's evidence - Bilby (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

COI editing

2) Members of the Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia have edited Wikipedia to include the activities and writings of other members, and have written about colleagues and supporters of the group. At times this has created issues by violating due weight and self-published sources, and reflects a conflict of interest.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Evidence includes Thomas John, Susan Gerbic, Tyler Henry, 5Q5's evidence, Ray Hyman, stings, Schazjmd's evidence and BLPs in general. This relates to the COI, Due, and BLP principals above. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example6

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Closing of WP:COIN discussion

In the evidence from ScottishFinnishRadish, [52], one line reads: "[53] Involved close, from an editor with strong opinions on the subject. Lists "facts" of the discussion, leaves out a functionary saying they have received clear evidence of COI editing. Community can't resolve issues when involved editors close threads with their POV." There is currently a review of the close at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive340#Closure of COIN thread by involved editor. The editor who made the close, AlexEng, specifically says there that they welcome the review, and although the review is currently still in progress, it looks to me like there is an emerging consensus to endorse the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The close review has been archived by the bot; I've corrected the link above. In my opinion, it's now best if editors here do not attempt to divine the consensus, if any – the Arbs can read it for themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tryptofish While there is consensus to endorse the close, I am pretty sure there is consensus to add the fact that a functionary received evidence Rp2006 has been making COI edits. The discussion at AN is more nuanced than what you make it seem, and I think it would be best to discuss this when the AN thread is closed and/or the time for evidence submissions is finished and not now. Bringing this point up now seems premature. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The close isn't necessarily disruptive, but it was clearly out of process, even more so because of the editor's history in earlier noticeboard discussions on the topic. The topic was Rp2006 on the conflict of interest noticeboard, and a functionary said there was convincing evidence of COI editing, but didn't know how to proceed. Leaving that out of the close could have significant ramifications down the line. It also prevented the unlikely circumstance of an uninvolved editor feeling like reading the thread and assessing the discussion for closure.

That said, I think the closure review was a waste of time, because it was even less likely to get any real consensus there. The community's interest was clearly spent at that point.

The purpose of the evidence is to show that the discussion was stonewalled by way of a non neutral close that left out probably the most important "fact" in the thread, the convincing evidence of COI editing by a user who was the subject of a thread on the COI noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I predict it gets archived unclosed, as should have happened to the COI thread. I've tossed runes and determined it could also be "No consensus to overturn" which is different from "endorse." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I just wasted some time, and did a skim over the entire COIN thread, preclosure, and did some rough counting. As I'm not trying to write a full close rationale I divided the count into "concerned," "not concerned," and "neutral/other/both." There were 16 editors expressing concern over the COI issues brought up, and 13 who were not concerned. Of the thirteen not concerned, one was Sgerbic, one was Rp2006, and one is a self-disclosed member of GSoW, so all three have a COI in regards to the thread. There were four in the misc. column. Looking at the close, it clearly was not a balanced summary of a discussion where 16 editors expressed one view, and 10 editors, including the closer, expressed the other view. When someone has, in past threads, as well as the thread under discussion, expressed that nothing should be done, then closes a thread as nothing should be done with a summary that leaves out a member of arbcom saying I have received credible (OUTING) evidence indicating that Rp2006 has been making COI edits, contrary to their claims otherwise (or, I suppose, someone offwiki is lying when they take credit for Rp2006's edits). So...now what? It's pretty clear from the above discussion that there is a larger problem than just this one editor.

The review as it stands now, untouched and lonely, has four editors endorsing the close and seven not, generally saying AlexEng appears to have forgotten to address the original question and someone should amend the close to include the community consensus on whether Rp2006 has to disclose their COI including reverts. and Given that a functionary (GeneralNotability) received credible evidence privately indicating Rp2006 has been making COI edits, that needs to be addressed in the closure. If you think that's an emerging consensus to endorse the close, I'm not sure we're looking at the same discussion. 63% not endorsing, and pointing out a specific issue, is even higher than the percentage of people in the original thread who were concerned about the COI issue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually miscounted the review, and the ratio is even worse for endorse. If you look at people who were uninvolved in the original thread, by my count it's 2 to 2. Last time there was an actual reply that wasn't "should we close this because it's at arbcom?" was six days ago, by someone involved in the first discussion. Last uninvolved input on the substance of the thread was ten days ago. Hopefully, it will slip into the sweet embrace of archiving soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish, my assertion in that section is that discussions in the topic area are difficult due to incivility and stonewalling. I then provide a link to a discussion in the topic area and provide examples. There's no mention of seeking sanctions against any of those users. It is simply diffs of what I see as incivility and stonewalling. I seriously doubt that anyone is going to be sanctioned for calling someone a witch hunter in a discussion, or making an involved close. I was also under the impression that proposing sanctions was for this page, not the evidence page.

Also, do you need a ping when I reply? I assume you have this page watched, but I want to be polite, but don't want to over ping you, which can be bothersome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I appreciate A. C. Santacruz's point that there may be revisions of the close, but that's not the same as consensus that it was an out-of-policy or disruptive close; in any case, Arbs should be made aware that the review is happening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the closure review will be a waste of time, because there are clearly things that need to be reviewed. It may be helpful to the Arbs to see whether or not the community there concludes that it was "stonewalling". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

An analysis of the review discussion so far should also distinguish between (1) editors who were previously uninvolved in the COIN discussion, and those who were involved and came to the review to dispute the close, (2) those who object procedurally to an involved close, versus those who disagree substantively with the closing conclusions, and (3) those who want to include the functionary finding, versus those who object to other matters of substance. (And for what it's worth, I said "although the review is currently still in progress, it looks to me... emerging", not "emerged".) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I might as well put this here. I asked SFR this at his talk the other day, and I took special notice of this, second paragraph, today. I hope that it's helpful for me to point out his own characterization of his evidence, because I'm concerned about the appearance that sanctions are being called for more widely (for a larger number of editors) than they really are. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, SFR, no need to ping me. You are correct that sanction proposals are made on the Workshop page, but Evidence can be (mis)interpreted as indicating that sanctions may be needed. It's always good to be clear. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Very similarly to what I noted just above about what SFR said about his own evidence, I want also to make note of a conversation I had with Apaugasma at another editor's talk page. I said this: [54], and he replied with this: [55]. I really meant what I said, that I have the impression with the evidence from both of these editors that they are "throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks". And my experience from previous cases tells me that when ArbCom sees evidence such as theirs, editors end up getting banned, because if there are so many bad diffs, we must remove that person from editing there. So I want the Arbs to be aware of Apaugasma's characterization of his own evidence, especially "I am not seeking sanctions, and I sincerely hope that no sanctions apart from a warning or two will come from this case." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

tldr: Never mind! Longer: In the past 24 hours or so, there has been a complete retraction of his evidence by Apaugasma (and of the corresponding rebuttal by ‎TrangaBellam). At least in part, this has followed some discussions at User talk:Tryptofish#ArbCom - the incivility issue. I think that there has been an increasing reconsideration among some of the editors who have contributed evidence about the incivility environment, and I'm happy to see it. I, for one, regret that the case scope and the list of named parties were extended from the original case request, and I hope that the focus of the case will return, at least to some extent, to that of the original request. There needs to be an acknowledgment of the difficulties of discussion, and the concerns about that expressed by some editors should be respected. But I hope that ArbCom will not go overboard in handing out sanctions. Consequently, my evidence analysis here becomes less important than when I originally posted it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Disputes at Sharon A. Hill

I've looked closely at the dispute at that page, and want to comment on some of the presentation of evidence here: [56]. I agree that some of the reverting there took place without enough talk page discussion. I will also give evidence about the edit war, and some civility concerns, so I won't discuss that redundantly here. I want to note that there were two (2) separate surveys on the talk page about the disputed content: first and second. This (presented in the evidence as the "clear consensus") is the close of the second discussion, about a single paragraph, and the edit implementing that close has not to date been reverted. It should be understood that the first discussion is the one about most of the edits that were repeatedly reverted. (It covers the MS thesis, which occupies multiple paragraphs; the reverts included those, the paragraph of the second RfC, and significantly more.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I made a slight adjustment to the text. Discussion has died down there, and there's a pretty clear consensus to trim the section down considerably, but it has ten more days before it wraps up. That's why I mentioned this when ACS mentioned opening another RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Thanks for that adjustment ([57]). It's significant to understand the differences in scope, as it's not like they are two half-and-half RfCs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GSoW is part of a charity?

Hi! 5Q5 found a link saying Susan Gerbic runs a charity organization called About Time, connected to GSoW, that takes donations. An email related to this has been sent to paid-en-wp. If it is true that this organization takes donations, its mission statement indicates a connection to wikipedia work (The mission of About Time is to find, mentor and train people to educate and promote science and scientific skepticism through crowd-sourced and educational activities world-wide) (emphasis my own) and GSoW, and is ran by Sgerbic, how does this affect the rest of the evidence in the case? This is particularly relevant to evidence related to COI editing. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Is there any evidence that About Time is actually using money to train Wikipedia editors? Is that evidence part of the email you sent? Because, as presented here, I don't find the connection very convincing. WP:MED has a foundation called the "Wiki Project Med Foundation" which also accepts donations related to their work [58]. I fail to see much of a difference.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a big difference. WikiProject Medicine operates out in the open and its members are known. About Time, which takes donations and controls GSoW is operating off of Wikipedia and its members are not known. It incorporated on December 20, 2017 in Washington DC. Susan Gerbic is the current Executing Officer and a member of its Board of Governors, something not currently disclosed on her User Page or Wikipedia biography. Quote by Serbic: We have also changed our name to About Time and have opened up a website (not dealing with Blogger anymore) which shows all the organizations that fall under About Time. One of which is the GSoW project. 5Q5|^✉ 17:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Coordinated efforts to increase use of Skeptical Inquirer on Wikipedia?

@BilledMammal describes a "campaign" to increase use of Skeptical Inquirer. I understand their concern, but would question which exact component makes this problematic.

To wit: Cochrane Collaboration/Wikipedia partnership. Increases use of Cochrane across Wikipedia, to improve the coverage of medicine.

How does this differ from Skeptical Inquirer? There are WP:PARITY issues throughout many obscure pseudoscientific articles [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] (I link both old and new discussions of PARITY issues here, to demonstrate that some of these are long-standing concerns). Using SI as a skeptical source could solve some of these issues, and provide a more full perspective on obscure, POV-ridden articles. And here are some instances where that is done, in a way that benefits the project compatible with the five pillars (in my opinion): [67] [68] [69] [70] If this effort is conducted in a way that improves Wikipedia compatible with WP:5P, is there actually an issue?

Perhaps the effort occasionally falls short. The same can be said of Cochrane. See this recent discussion of Cochrane on WT:MED. If the overall effort improves the encyclopedia, it is easy to forgive occasional lapses in conduct. I would A) urge Arbs to consider the full impact of increased use of SI and impact on the project, on balance, and B) urge BilledMammal to more completely describe what the actual issue is with increased use of CSI RSes. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The videos I added as part of my evidence (under Sgerbic header) seem to indicate this is done to further the careers of the writers/increase the exposure of the publication rather than just adding it to improve information on Wikipedia (e.g. by increasing their likelihood of being offered media appearances, interviews, quotes in articles, etc. in the case of writer and increase the circulation in the case of SI). Editing for your benefit or those you are associated with is editing under a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion, of yourself or others. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally I don't fully agree with making an equivalence between Cochrane and SI. The first is a highly reputable medical publisher while the other one is a publication centered around scientific skepticism which I'd characterize as popular science. I'd characterize it as an effort to increase the coverage of History's magazines and not something like The American Historical Review. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Re Shibbolethink, my argument does not depend on how reliable I see SI as being. It rests on the character of the publication. A publication that leaves the burden of accuracy to the writers and not itself is just not comparable to an institution like Cochrane.

Additionally, it's not that I think the use of SI is bad, is that judging by the evidence I strongly believe its done at least in part to further the careers of people within the skeptic movement and so think its use within this context is problematic and in violation of WP principles. If Cochrane's manager for the Wikipedia partnership had repeatedly asserted statements like This is where we write (or rewrite) pages of our skeptical spokespeople. When they are in the media's eye, we know that their Wikipedia page views are going to spike. or So what I wanted to do is I want those people to be on the page so that when something like [ cupping therapy use during the Olympics] happens the media (you know the media is losing money and cutting research so they go to the Wikipedia) found experts who have great, readable articles, they go "Hey, Harriet Hall is local to us, let's call her." [...] So we're kind of thinking that way. I'd be skeptical of the use of Cochrane in any article, but especially BLPs of skeptics. That, along with the backwards editing philosophy, is indicative of an agenda to mention skeptic perspectives in an undue manner for promotional use, whether by citing SI or otherwise. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked at a diff you used above, picked at random, [71] and I see it being added as a primary source to a BLP. There was no secondary coverage of them arguing, and rebutting back and forth, so it shouldn't be added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying in prose "person x published a rebuttal" citing the rebuttal is bog standard primary sourcing. If no independent secondary sources are covering them going back and forth with rebuttals it's not due for inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The initial review would be fine, but if after, the artist rebutted the review, and the reviewer rebutted the artist, and no one else covered it, who cares. It's just two people writing rebuttals back and forth unnotably. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking into the diff I mentioned led me to this diff, of Sgerbic expanding the article of someone she had a COI with, using sources she has a COI with and that are not independent of the article subject. She also coatracked attacks on BLPs into the article using articles the subject wrote for a source she had a COI with. That's the exact problem with the use of these sources.

We don't include attacks made by article subjects on other BLPs sources only to the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So adding whole sections of criticisms of a BLP in the article of another BLP, sourced only to that article's subject, with no secondary coverage to show that it was notable, and written in the article subject's own magazine is the intended use of WP:RSOPINION? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Assuming the COI puffery isn't false, On October 9, 2010, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry announced Hyman (and others) as a part of their policy-making Executive Council, he will also serve on Skeptical Inquirer's magazine board.[25][26] He is one of the founders of CSI, which owns and operates SI. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Editor will often send manuscripts dealing with technical or controversial matters to reviewers. The authors, however, are responsible for the accuracy of fact and perspective. We advise having knowledgeable colleagues review drafts before submission. [72] That is not real editorial oversight. If you have to tell an author to have someone check their work, that is not fact checking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It differs in that the Cochrane Collaboration is conducted with the sole intent of improving Wikipedia with public oversight, and is limited to adding to medical articles references and content from some of the best possible systematic meta-analyses. GSoW is negatively contrasted with this, due to their covert nature, their intent of promoting CSI, and the fact that the efforts are not limited to adding CSI RSes but extend to creating, expanding, and promoting articles on entities affiliated with CSI. Further, SI's quality is not comparable to that of Cochrane, and GSoW does not limit these additions to SI's area of expertise, instead adding references wherever they believe they can fit, including circumstances where MEDRS are required. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "GSoW does not limit these additions to SI's area of expertise" - Regarding the "Ice fall" example [73], how is that inappropriate? The source is from an authority on the subject. Regarding the "Tinnitus" example [74], the sentence already has a MEDRS linked, so adding an additional non-MEDRS source is not inappropriate to the best of my knowledge. Indeed, another non-MEDRS was already cited there. As well, the source is from a physician who is an expert on debunking pseudoscientific treatments of common diseases: [75] [76] [77] (mirror) [78] [79] [80] — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with the Icefall addition is that it is unrelated to the concept covered in the article - I consider it indicative of spamming SI without careful consideration in order to promote SI, rather than carefully considering whether the addition is suitable and whether it will improve Wikipedia. As for the Tinnitus addition, even if adding a redundant non-MEDRS source doesn't directly harm the encyclopaedia, it doesn't benefit it, and I consider such an addition to again be indicative of them spamming SI, rather than careful and appropriate placement. BilledMammal (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree completely and believe the Icefall addition was entirely appropriate and compatible with the subject of the article. It was probably too long, but I think the addition itself was appropriate, just needed to be trimmed to be WP:DUE. As often occurs with additions that many editors make every second. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The article Icefall covers an aspect of glacial flow. The SI reference covered a frozen pond rolling down a slope - as A loose necktie said, wrong concept. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If some people covered by RSes consider the concept an "Icefall", then it's appropriate for the article, even if academically the two things are distinct. Just merits explaining the misnomer. It's still WP:DUE if RSes describe it as an icefall. Rule of thumb: if someone could reasonably wind up on that page and think they're reading about the concept in the source, then it's appropriate to distinguish them and list the usages in the article. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, just as a by the way, I visited a few Canadian glaciers in 2019, and learned on my tour led by a glaciologist that Glaciers are often described as frozen rivers. [81] [82]. What is a frozen pond falling except a frozen river? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) The only similarity is in the name - there is no connection made between glacial flow and the "Ice Fall" covered. If we had an article on "Ice Fall" (large chunks of ice supposedly falling from the sky) then the appropriate addition would be a two-dab hatnote. However, I think we are starting to get into a content discussion, so if you want to take this further, I would ask that we take it to the articles talk page, and we can report the result of that discussion here. BilledMammal (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: ACSC: It seems quite a bit of your argument rests on your own opinion of Skeptical Inquirer as unreliable. But, as far as I can tell, the community does not yet share this opinion. One can imagine that the increased use of Cochrane is also good for Cochrane. But what matters most is whether the effort is in service of improving the project. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: SFR, if the Skeptical Inquirer article is a secondary comment written by a subject matter expert in reply to a primary source, how is the SI article, itself, primary? Seems to me that it is an opinion piece published in an RS that is appropriately attributed. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: SFR, how is this different from movie critics or literature critics' reviews being cited in articles about those movies or literature? Or the many other times that BLP articles have criticism sources linked? It's a matter of WP:RSOPINION and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. See this quote from ATTRIBUTEPOV (emphasis mine): "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and must not be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre." Opinions must still be verifiable and appropriately cited. The usage here is nearly identical to this example. It is also compliant with WP:V as an RSOPINION. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) In response to your addition of the four diffs showing beneficial use of SI, I see no indication that any of the editors listed are members of GSoW; I assume that you choose the first four beneficial uses you found, rather than excluding those that were added by GSoW members?

If correct, then the fact that no GSoW editors are identifiable, even though if you had selected four uses at random we would expect two or three of them to have been made by members of GSoW, suggests that their efforts to promote SI are not improving Wikipedia, and that the addition of SI references should be left to editors without a COI. BilledMammal (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If we have no way of truly knowing the membership of GSoW, what use is it to argue about who is and is not a member? Why would all GSoW members have a COI? I thought the argument was that members who are directly connected to Gerbic had a COI? Are you now arguing that anyone who was ever a member of GSoW, simply by virtue of being a member, has a COI? My argument is that adding SI to these pseudoscience articles as a source improves the articles. Nothing more. Many GSoW members appear to do that. And actually, to your point, I believe someone has previously alleged LuckyLouie is a member, and my first diff is from this user. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:52, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"if you had selected four uses at random we would expect two or three of them to have been made by members of GSoW" - Why would we expect that? We would only expect that if Skeptical Inquirer was such a fringe and unknown source that only GSoW members would use it. It seems to me that the fact that many other editors use the source is actually an indication that it is more widely recognized as reliable outside of GSoW. And this would actually be a point in favor of their using it being beneficial to the project. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Because the behaviour and impact of GSoW is an important aspect of this case, and to consider that we need to have an idea who the members are - and I see no indication that LuckyLouie is a member, but if you have some evidence I would welcome seeing it.

And we would expect that because I presented evidence showing that the vast majority of uses were by members of GSoW. Further, the fact that a source can be used appropriately doesn't mean that all uses of a source are appropriate, particularly when the source is used for a purpose other than improving Wikipedia, such as to promote the source.

Regarding the COI, I would consider members of GSoW to have a connection to Gerbic as the leader of GSoW. BilledMammal (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I also see no clear evidence that Matjazgregoric is a member, and yet you cite them as a member with this diff [83] (a diff btw, that I fail to see as objectionable in any way). You actually cite many different editors for whom I fail to see any clear evidence of membership. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See Editor connections to GSoW for the evidence. Further evidence demonstrating connection is available, but I would need additional words and diffs to present it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

ehhhhhh. This to me is only evidence that this user asked sgerbic for help. Could have been through email, through facebook, through discord. There's a lot of assumptions being made that this is all through GSoW. It smells to me like conspiratorial thinking. There are tons of extra-Wiki methods to talk between editors, and people use them all the time: discord, Wikipediocracy, facebook, etc. It's only an issue when they canvass, meat puppet, etc. I would also describe your evidence for User:Nederlandse Leeuw as "thin." They are an editor very interested in skepticism, pseudoscience, etc. Very active in the skepticism wikiproject. Here since 2011. Why is it unusual that sgerbic, another editor from this wikiproject, collaborated with them on an article about a secular activist? I believe this is overall a case of "seeing what you want to see." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) As I said, I can provide additional evidence if required (and I am given additional diffs and words), including for Matjazgregoric. BilledMammal (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"I would consider members of GSoW to have a connection to Gerbic as the leader of GSoW" - Would you say that anyone who has ever attended a workshop led by Jimmy Wales about Wikipedia editing to have a COI in editing Wales' article? What about anyone who has attended the Northwest Glaciologists Conference? There's basically only 50 people at this conference total [84]. And it happens every year, and it's basically always the same people. Do all the attendees have a COI in editing articles about famous glaciologists who were at the event? If not, what's the difference? — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

(ec) I don't believe that is comparable; GSoW involves ongoing membership, while a workshop does not, and as far as I know Wales does not use those workshops to encourage editors to use their edits to promote entities that he has a COI with. BilledMammal (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What about the Cochrane collaboration edit-a-thons and other events [85]? Those attendees edit Cochrane articles, articles where Cochrane is used, etc. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe all the differences I stated in my first reply also apply to their collaboration edit-a-thons and other events, but if I am wrong please correct me. BilledMammal (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe what we have is a difference of opinion. I have already pointed out several flaws that I see in your reasoning in that comment, flaws that I don't believe you agree are flaws. I don't think we're going to find much to agree on here. So let's leave it at that, and Arbs and other editors will have to decide for themselves. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe your objections were to my examples, rather than my broader reasoning, but you are right on the difference of opinion, and I will step back from this conversation for the moment. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Just for my own knowledge, where did you present evidence that the vast majority of SI uses are by members of GSoW? There are nearly 1030 uses of SI that I can see from an external link search [86], and that's excluding any "csicop.org" uses from antiquated URLs. From my reading, many of these uses predate the existence of GSoW. I would be very interested to see evidence that most of these uses are GSoW members. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

See here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

RE SFR: "We don't include attacks made by article subjects on other BLPs sources only to the article subject" as long as that comment is made in an RS, we actually do, per WP:RSOPINION (emphasis mine):

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.

Of course, when it involves attacking other BLPs, things get complicated. I don't really see that in the diff you've provided, though. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you're referring to some of the youtube clips linked in reference to criticisms of Uri Geller, then yes, these are criticisms of another BLP. Issue being, though, that these aren't sourced to Hyman. They're actually sourced to a Canadian TV program called "Telescope." It's just badly templated sourcing, I'd also agree there were some UNDUE issues there, but nothing some trimming couldn't fix. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: SFR: this is a straw man. I would say that these instances you've linked are sourced to more than just the subject. Also: "written in the article subject's own magazine" - Why does the magazine belong to Hyman? It seems he just served on the magazine's board for a while. I see no functional difference between this and a photographer who was on the board of a photography magazine writing an editorial for that magazine. Still an RSOPINION and not an SPS. The difference is that there exists an editorial board to review the contribution. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: SFR - I believe this was the subject of an entire RS/N discussion, which to my reading, does not have consensus that SI is a SPS. We would have to await the outcome or closure of that discussion. But at the moment, as far as I can tell, this is just your opinion. My opinion is that this is extremely similar to how many RS magazine/news outlets operate wrt editorials. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking for help regarding Arbcom as evidence of bad behaviour?

Hi! Sgerbic has added quite a few diffs where I asked other editors for help to create an arbcom case. I asked because I had no experience with arbcom at all and had barely a few months of active editing by then so I didn't want to make mistakes, and I also sought help gathering evidence for the case. My question: to what extent is asking for help building an arbcom case or gathering evidence for one a disruptive or harassing action? Many experienced editors had been saying the matter was better resolved by arbcom than the community, so I don't understand why trying to bring up the issue there is bad. I'm also a bit unsure as to what Sgerbic is accusing me of with that evidence (as it doesn't really mention).A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:12, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Presumably this is something the arbs will consider; it's hard for anyone to answer here without preempting that. Alexbrn (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I will tell you that it's hard for me to believe that ArbCom would consider asking others for help steel-manning evidence and articulating arguments is a bad thing. Especially when it's done out in the open. The issue is when editors coordinate to create a desired outcome on Wikipedia, in a way that subverts the normal process of the project (I also do not believe that GSoW has done this). I don't really see how ACSC's asking others for help would subvert the goals of the project, if their arguments are made in good faith and done with a full view of available evidence. It's true that cherry picking is bad as perhaps the only possible bad thing about their evidence, and probably can edge towards tendentious behavior, but it's also probably the rule, rather than the exception, on forums like this. Hardly worthy of the Spanish Inquisition. Everybody expects it. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable evidence

FeydHuxtable accurately says that some evidence of uncollegial editing was retracted, but in fairness, so was evidence that (astutely in my opinion) rebutted that material: [87]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I am a bit curious as to why all of that evidence was pulled. - Bilby (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good question. It came out of discussions amongst those editors: [88], [89], [90], and [91]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I guess having now read those discussion, I am a little concerned that the evidence was pulled after you argued that the evidence should be handled through AE, rather than the arbcom case that was specifically looking at Roxy's editing. I'm not sure that you should have been trying to convince someone that their evidence should have been handled elsewhere, given the situation. - Bilby (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that's not getting it quite right. I just went back and reread what I said to those editors in my talk, to make sure that I remember correctly. I said that I had problems with the way evidence was presented on the case request page. I said that I thought that some evidence on the evidence page was unbalanced, and that I didn't like that. I said that it seemed to me that the dispute could have been handled at AE, and that I would support the views of other editors that it should be made clearer that AE is available for the future (and I have followed through on that). But I did not tell anyone to remove their evidence and move it now to AE. I didn't really tell anyone to remove their evidence at all, just that I thought they were wrong. And no one would have been obligated to remove it even if, hypothetically, I had told them to – we're grown-up people here. I had, and have, every right to criticize other editors' evidence, and other editors' approach to the case, especially if they first contact me about it on my talk page and I'm replying to them. It sounds like you are trying to make a case that I somehow manipulated other editors into changing their evidence, to advance a result that I wanted. I hope that I misunderstand you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Tryptofish's comment above contains two mistakes: (1) the retracted rebuttal is here rather than here, and (2) that rebuttal was not astute .

I retracted my evidence because I realized that this case is about GSoW/coordinated editing/COI-editing, and none of my evidence had anything to do with that. Roxy has nothing to do with it. I try to stay away from skepticism-related topics because incivility is rampant and because there seems to be a consensus among relevant editors that Wikipedia takes scientific skepticism/logical positivism as a house POV, even if it needs to go against the most prominent and reliable sources for that. I went as far as to write an essay about the second point here, but this case is not about that, and I don't actually think there should be a case about it at this time. I was wrong to call for that in my opening statement. The truth is that I'm in a one-against-many situation, and I prefer to yield to consensus.

As for the incivility: it's really a big problem in the general topic area, but as related to this case it's not the most relevant thing to consider. Like I've said elsewhere, stern warnings that WP:CIVIL is not optional are needed (if some of this continues, it should go to AE), but certainly nothing more than that. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Scope of the COI in Rp2006's evidence

Rp2006 states See claims by others here, including BilledMammal's complaint Debunker and Mediumship should be off limits to me. I believe this to be a misunderstanding of the evidence I presented; the issue was with editing those articles to promote CSI, in the case through adding content about and links to Susan Gerbic, rather than with editing the articles generally. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is in no way connected to any of the content within the page but since this case doesn't have a shortcut I would like WP:ARBSCE to be used for that purpose. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I have created the shortcut and linked it to the main case page. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Might be worth also having WP:ARBSKE, for the North Americans. BilledMammal (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Not sure I follow on that one. I believe ARBSCE is because the case is called Skepticism and cordinated editing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:00, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I read it as "Scepticism and coordinated editing", but your interpretation makes sense. BilledMammal (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

MJL is correct. I was debating whether to have WP:ARBSCE or WP:ARBSKEP, but I eventually chose the former. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I read it as an acronym when responding to the request. ARBSKEP might be useful as well, as the topic area of this case is scepticism. Anyone can create this redirect if they feel so inclined, and if you want it to be listed on the case page in the shortcuts box do ask. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)