Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:39, 25 January 2022

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 GeneralNotability

Proposed principles

Template

1) {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:

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:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Example 2

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:

Proposals by User:Example 3

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, [1], one line reads: "[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [3], and he replied with this: [4]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [5]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comment by others:

Thanks for that adjustment ([6]). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [7]. I fail to see much of a difference.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (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): [16] [17] [18] [19] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I looked at a diff you used above, picked at random, [20] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [21] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(edit conflict) "GSoW does not limit these additions to SI's area of expertise" - Regarding the "Ice fall" example [22], how is that inappropriate? The source is from an authority on the subject. Regarding the "Tinnitus" example [23], 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: [24] [25] [26] (mirror) [27] [28] [29] — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. [30] [31]. What is a frozen pond falling except a frozen river? — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 00:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I also see no clear evidence that Matjazgregoric is a member, and yet you cite them as a member with this diff [32] (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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

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:

@@ Line 458: / Line 458: @@
 ::::::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]]? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 :::::::Assuming the COI puffery isn't false, {{tq|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. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
+::::::::{{tq|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.}} [https://skepticalinquirer.org/article-submission-guidelines/] That is not real editorial oversight. If you have to tell an author to have someone check their work, that is not fact checking. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 :'''Comment by others:'''